The common procedure for determining whether a food additive should be banned from use is to compare its health-relat...
LSATChrisOctober 11, 2019
Answer D
In the paragraph it doesn't validate the health risk thus the claim is unfounded making it a flaw. Your saying the flaw in the argument is they relate it to a health to benefit? How so? The paragraph says nothing about health benefit.
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
The argument explicitly tells us that the common procedure for deciding whether a food additive should be banned involves weighing its health-related benefits against potential risks. The argument concludes that Yellow Dye No. 5 should not be banned because its benefits greatly outweigh the risk, but the only benefit cited in support of this conclusion is people's enjoyment of lemon soda, which is clearly not a health-related benefit. Since the procedure requires weighing HEALTH-RELATED benefits against the risk, the argument is flawed.
Let me know if this makes sense and if you have any further questions.
LSATChrisOctober 11, 2019
@Irina I see what you mean now.. I feel like these question are making me dumb.. do people often feel that way?
IrinaOctober 11, 2019
@LSATChris,
I think the questions are often designed to test your ability to read closely and pay attention to detail, which is an important skill in legal practice, especially for contracts. It is quite common to miss an obvious answer though, especially when you are doing a timed practice set. The good news is that the more you practice, the easier and more intuitive these questions will get.
