Although this bottle is labeled "vinegar," no fizzing occurred when some of the liquid in it was added to powder from...

Emanuel-Centeno November 20, 2019

Alternative Explanation

I was tempted by A, but I ultimately chose the correct answer. I realized B was more direct in terms of what I thought was wrong. I thought to myself, what if the liquid was acidic, just not vinegar? Wouldn't that mean what I thought all along, that the box's substance was mislabeled? Must arguments address alternatives in the LSAT? Am I making too many assumptions when thinking of A? Or is it because of the question's structure that I'm looking for a POSSIBLE error? Thanks

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

SamA November 20, 2019

Hello @Emanuel-Centeno,

You seem to understand why B is correct, but I will give a brief explanation. What is that alternative explanation? That the "baking soda" could also have been mislabeled. The author provides the failure to react as the reason for concluding that the "vinegar" was mislabeled. However, isn't it just as possible that the "baking soda" was mislabeled? This is the flaw expressed by B.

Let's talk about A. Accepting the author's flawed argument, we will assume that the baking soda is what it claims to be. Therefore, when mixed with an acidic substance it will fizz. However, it did not fizz when it was mixed with the so-called "vinegar." From this, we can conclude that the liquid was not acidic, and therefore not vinegar. In this case, the conclusion is valid. Our mission was to show that the conclusion is not valid, and A doesn't help us.

From your question: "I thought to myself, what if the liquid was acidic, just not vinegar?" In this case, that is not relevant, because the mixture did not fizz. I'll create an example in which A would be the correct answer.

Premise: When the liquid was added to baking soda, it fizzed.
Conclusion: The substance labeled "vinegar" is definitely vinegar.

Flaw: What if it was lemon juice?

I don't think you are making too many assumptions, I think you just misunderstood the argument. The author wanted to prove that the liquid was mislabeled. This is the conclusion we wanted to attack. He/she was not trying to prove that the substance was properly labeled. This is what A would attack.