Q19 - Dietician: It is true

[acconway1]

what what what?

What is the "core" of this argument? Is this problem poorly written, or is it just me? Why is (a) correct?

[giladedelman]

Ha, ha! Thanks for your post. I suppose this is a pretty poorly organized argument, but we've got to be ready for that! The LSAT is not here to make our lives easier. We should expect to have to work to tease out the logical structure of certain arguments.

Since this is an "analyze the argument" question, we should start by identifying the conclusion: eating raw carrots by themselves is not an effective way to obtain vitamin A. This is based on the premise that the body can't transform beta carotene into vitamin A without some fat.

So that's the argument core. But again, since this is an "analyze the argument" question, we're also responsible for understanding the other stuff. So what are those first two statements, the ones about natural foods vs. supplements and the unhealthiness of fat, doing? Well, they give context to the argument core. Specifically, they establish reasons why someone might turn to raw carrots alone as a source of vitamin A -- a practice that the argument cautions against.

Answer (A) accurately describes the role that the "fat" statement plays. As we said above, it's a reason for adopting a practice (eating raw carrots by themselves) that the author provides a reason (the premise) for not taking to the extreme; that is, don't eat raw carrots all alone -- a little fat is okay!

(B) is out of scope. The argument doesn't mention citation.

(C) is plainly contradictory; the author doesn't undermine this hypothesis, he says it's true!

(D) is wrong on both counts. The author doesn't attack this statement, nor is it introduced as support for the first statement about vitamins; they're two independent facts.

(E) reverses the author's position, which is that one shouldn't eat raw carrots by themselves.

Does that clear this one up for you at all?

[interestedintacos]

I think the statement in question is analogues to the first sentence, and the dietician's main point is that while generally artificially supplements are inferior (just as fat is generally unhealthy), one should not go so far as to avoid them altogether (just as one shouldn't go so far as to avoid fat altogether), since taken in combination with natural foods they can help provide the greatest boost (just as a little fat does in conjunction with natural foods).

If you look at answer choice A it also perfectly applies to the first sentence. The first sentence provides a reason why not to eat artificial supplements, and the argument is denied to show why one shouldn't take that to its extreme and therefore avoid artificial supplements altogether based on it.

What do you think? I can see how this might be seen as stretching what's on the paper, but that's the why I put it together. Obviously it's irrelevant to getting the correct choice, but I'm interested in whether that could be seen as a valid way to put it together.

[giladedelman]

Not valid!!! The argument never ever says that taking supplements is okay. It only argues that some fat is okay.

[skapur777]

I hated this question, another example of really confusing LSAT answer choice wording.

My question is, how does the line "fat is generally unhealthy in one's diet" coincide with A? If anything the part "since the body cannot transform beta carotene into vitamin A unless it is consumed with at least some fat" serves as the reason for someone to adopt a dietary practice while not carrying it to the extreme (eating raw carrots only without fat)

And thus, I thought E was more of a concession and a 'bad reason' for adopting a dietary habit.

But now, looking at it, I'm just confused. Do they mean in choice (E), that they are saying the statement implies that fat being unhealthy for one's diet is a reason, albeit bad, for adopting the dietary habit?

If so, then I totally see why that is wrong.

And with regards to (A), I am most confused when he says "that the dietitian provides a reason for not carrying to the extreme". Just the very wording "it is mentioned as a reason for adopting a dietary practice that the dietitian provides a reason...."

The two "reason's" confuse me.

[giladedelman]

The fact that fat is generally unhealthy is a reason that people might eat raw carrots all by themselves. But the dietitian's point is that that particular eating habit is not a good idea.

So this fact is a reason for adopting a practice (avoiding fat in food) that the dietitian provides a reason (body needs fat to process beta carotene) for not carrying to the extreme (i.e., eating raw carrots all by themselves).

(E) is way out there. The argument never says that this is a bad reason to do something. In fact, the fact that fat is unhealthy is not in any way offered as a reason to eat carrots with some fat, as the dietitian suggests.

Does that clear this up?

[americano1990]

Hi giladedelman~

I just wanted to point out that I understood choice (A) in a slightly different perspective than you seem to have taken.

This is my taken on it: It is a reason for adopting a practice (eating fat) that the dietitian provides a reason to not take it to the extreme (dont eat too much fat! Only a little..like when you want to derive vita A from carrots!)

What do you think?

[giladedelman]

Be careful here -- we're talking about the statement that "fat in one's diet is generally unhealthy" (emphasis mine). That's not a reason to eat fat, that's a reason to NOT eat fat. The dietitian is saying, hey, don't get rid of fat altogether, because a little bit of it helps get all the nutrients out of good stuff like carrots.

You dig?