by ohthatpatrick Thu Nov 06, 2014 8:42 pm
You have to OVER-estimate how much food is needed for a standard serving in order to pour too much. If I underestimated how much food is needed for a standard serving, I would pour too little.
On Inference questions, you want to be SUPER cautious of extreme, comparative, and out of scope wording. (Same deal for Necessary Assumption)
If you're not already aware of that, you're spending a lot more brain power on these than you need to.
The word "most" (and its equivalents: generally, typically, primarily, usually, tends to) are the most frequent answer-killers in Inference, Necessary Assumption, and Reading Comp.
"Few" = "most" (in the opposite sense).
If I say "few of my friends are vegetarians", that's equivalent to saying "most of my friends are not vegetarians".
So (A) is saying "most people who consume fortified foods are NOT aware of the recommended daily intake of A and D."
The supreme red-flag there is "most people". Does anything in the info allow us to comment on MOST, more than 50%, of people?
The only information we receive about people is "many people" in the last sentence.
"Many" has no precise quantitative meaning. I can say "many people are right handed" and be referring to 80+% of the global population or say "many people are hit by lightning each year" and be referring to less than 1% of the population.
Glancing at these answer choices, (A) and (D) jump out at me as scary because of the FEW / MOST wording.
A broader problem with picking (A) is that to do so you're making assumptions about people's awareness/motivations.
We know that people sometimes pour themselves too much cereal, thereby eating 200-300% of the recommended daily intake of the vitamins in that cereal.
But why did they pour themselves that much cereal?
- they're not aware of the recommend daily intake?
- they're aware but they're confused about how much cereal they need to get the recommended daily intake?
- they're aware of both the daily intake AND of how much cereal they need, but they think, "Screw it --- I want a big bowl of Lucky Charms."
(B) is very supportable without anything beyond the info given:
i. fortified foods have 100% of recommended daily intake (RDI) in a standard serving
ii. many people consume two to three times the standard serving of fortified foods
==============
many people consume more than the RDI
Remember that Inference on LSAT doesn't mean what it means to most of us in normal life.
If I saw a man walking down the street with a dozen roses, I might INFER (real-world sense) that he's about to give them to his girlfriend/wife. I'm speculating a motivation/explanation for his actions.
That is NOT an LSAT Inference.
An LSAT Inference is something I can prove with only the provided information. I can INFER (LSAT sense) that humans are not incapable of carrying more than five of the same thing. (After all, this man is capable of carrying 12 roses)
=== other answers ===
(C) Again, the "mistakenly believe" is an overreach into the craniums of these people. Focus on the WHAT of the information given. Trap answers are trying to bait you into speculating on the WHY. If (C) were correct, (B) would ALSO be correct, because it would still be true that some people are exceeding the RDI.
(D) "most" is too extreme. If we knew that "most" people who eat fortified foods were eating 200-300% of RDI (we don't), then it would be more okay to say that they shouldn't take vitamin supplements for those overeaten vitamins. It would still be extreme to say they shouldn't take ANY vitamin supplements.
(E) "unaware" is getting into people's thoughts. Nothing on the page gives us anything about manufacturers' awareness. They might be aware that people are eating excessive vitamin content, but still be happy that the people are going through the cereal more quickly.
Hope this helps.