Mini Passage #4 (Main Point and Argumentation)

[Legalistic]

Hello Team,

On page 251 in the 2019 RC Bible, I'm having trouble understanding why 2C is not correct. I thought that was the correct answer because lines 5-9 seem to be a summary of the proponents pov, that that author attempts to discredit in his argument. Can you please explain why C is wrong and how I should think when confronted with a question like this? And, also why D is correct?

Thank you in advance,
Legalistic

[Adam Tyson]

Thanks for the question, Legalistic! Answer C is saying that those lines sum up what the author seeks to disprove, but that's not what is happening there. The author is trying to disprove that paleo diets pose little risk, but she says the claim in lines 6-9 is CORRECT. In other words, the author is saying that her opponents are right about that premise even though they are wrong in their conclusion. So we need an answer that captures the idea that those lines are something that the opponents claim and that the author concedes is true but which still doesn't prove the opponents are correct.

Answer D does the job. The position in those lines could be used as an objection to the author's position, and in fact is used by her opponents. Ultimately the author says that information, while correct, is insufficient to prove the opponents' position, but it still was their objection to her argument.

Confusing, I know! But focus on the fact that our author said that claim was correct, and answer C should look more obviously wrong.

[m74tran]

Hello! I have an additional inquiry about the same question.

The correct answer [D] uses the phrase “the recommendation put forth in the argument”, specifically using the word “recommendation”. However, after combing through all of the author’s Premises & Main Point, I noticed that there was no literal “recommendation”, as in “an actionable statement”. (Of course it’s implied, but the author never gave a “recommendation” to stay away from diets with increased meat consumption). For this reason I eliminated contender [D] pretty quickly, especially as I’ve been learning to be very critical of each word, especially when doing Logical Reasoning questions.

I guess my question is: is there an “LSAT definition” for the word “recommendation”? Should I have taken this word with a more loose definition when evaluating this answer choice? Should I apply that same thought to all Reading Comprehension questions, especially when compared to Logical Reasoning questions?

Thank you!

[Jeff Wren]

Hi m74tran,

While you're right to go into the answers with a very critical reading of each word and to be looking for a reason to eliminate each answer (i.e. focus on the negative), there will be occasions where you find that you've been overly critical and eliminated all five answers. When that happens, then you need to "reassess" and perhaps loosen up your standard to find the best of the five answers, even if you don't really love the answer that you ultimately select.

Prephrasing is very helpful here. If your prephrase for this question was something such as "the part mentioned in the question was a premise/support for the opposing argument," that would still help in ultimately selecting Answer D among these choices. While I'd prefer if Answer D were worded a bit differently (for example, such as using the word "position" or "argument" rather than "recommendation"), it is still the best of the five answers and the closest to this prephrase.

I believe that the LSAT uses the word "recommendation" based on its dictionary definitions, with the exact/specific definition being used depending on the context of the passage. Here, it would be used as something like "a suggestion or proposal for a course of action."

You're also correct that the recommendation is implied in this passage rather than explicit, but this does occur both in RC and especially in LR and is fair game to be tested. For example, in many LR arguments containing causal reasoning, the causal reasoning is implied rather than stated outright.