#10 - Cafeteria patron: The apples sold in this cafeteria

[jared.xu]

Is there a typo in the correct answer A? "The apples that the cafeteria sells are not thoroughly washed after harvest but before reaching the cafeteria." For A to be the right answer, "but" needs to be taken out and replaces with "nor." The way the answer is currently phrased seems to undermine the argument in the stimulus. Thank you.

[Steve Stein]

The patron's conclusion that the apples are hazardous is based on the pesticide that is sprayed on the fruit before harvest. For this conclusion to hold true, the patron must presume that the fruit does not undergo cleaning between this spraying and delivery to the cafeteria. In other words, as correct answer choice A provides, The patron must assume that the apples are not cleaned after harvest, but before the cafeteria delivery.

We can confirm this to be the correct answer choice by applying the Assumption Negation Technique: The correct answer choice will provide the assumption that is necessary--the assumption, then, when taken away, will undermine the argument's conclusion.

If we take away the assumption provided by answer choice A, then the apples are cleaned between the harvesting and the cafeteria delivery, this undermines the patron's conclusion.

Let me know if that makes sense--thanks!

[jared.xu]

Thank you for your response and I accept your explanation, only I still have trouble with the word "but." It seems to me in place of the word "but," the word "nor" or "and" should be used for your interpretation to work. If we change the word "but" into "and" or "nor," everything will seem clear and precise. The word "but" seems to give the meaning that the apples are washed "before reaching the cafeteria." What do you think will happen to the meaning of the sentence if we change "but" to "and"? Does that make the sentence incorrect or more precise? Thank you in advance for replying.

[Steve Stein]

Changing the word "but" to "and" would have no bearing on the argument--such a change would make the argument neither more precise nor incorrect. Consider the following two sentences, which have very similar meanings:

I like chocolate but I don't vanilla.
I like chocolate and I don't like vanilla.

Similarly, these two assumptions mean nearly the same thing:
I assume that no apple washing is done after harvest but before cafeteria delivery.
I assume that no apple washing is done after harvest and before cafeteria delivery.

Let me know if that makes sense--thanks!

[jared.xu]

The examples you gave do show that the two sentences have no big difference, though their emphasis and implications still differ. Even in the example you gave, the “but” implies that there is a change of meaning from positive to negative (from like to don’t like). “And” is used loosely for the same function in your example 2. In your following citation from the text, the use of the word “but” similarly imply a change from negative to positive. And for that reason, it means that the apples are not washed after harvest, but washed before cafeteria delivery. It seems the only way to convey the idea that the apples are washed neither after harvest nor before delivery is not to use the word “but” (use either “nor” or “and”). Do you agree that the common core of the English language still functions here, or does LSAT have its own language?

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Jared,

Let me jump in quickly here. I'm not sure you read Steve's examples closely; operationally they mean the same thing, without some new emphasis on one or another aspect. Please take a look at those again with that in mind

Personally, do I wish that LSAC had stated this idea in a different way? Yes, they could have been clearer, no doubt about that! Is their use of English in this case defensible? Yes, entirely so, and you'll see other similar examples where they could have been clearer but weren't (I often think this is intentional; it is a test, after all). The bigger point is, it doesn't matter what we all think of their clarity or use of English. They are the arbiters of what is right and wrong on this test, and the goal--as always--is to understand their mindset. As I mentioned in a response to a different question you posted, you are again arguing with the test makers, and there is no benefit in doing that. You must focus on what they are doing and how to recognize it--that will make you a better test taker, not arguing that they could have done it differently, or better (although, believe me, I would love to sit down and argue with them about some of the phrasings they have used! ).

That's it. Thanks!

[jared.xu]

Thank you both for your advice. It's an important lesson to bear in mind.

[catherinedf]

Hi,

I'm looking at question 10 about the apples and pesticides. I narrowed down the answers to A and B and am having a hard time understanding why B is not also correct. It seems to me that both are assumptions the author makes - he assumes the greasy residue is in fact pesticide and that the apples have not been washed since harvest.

I would appreciate any advice!

Thanks,

Catherine

[Steve Stein]

Thanks for your question. The problem with B is that the assumption provided there regards "most" fruit pesticides--in other words, over half of the various pesticides used on fruits around the world. This is a rather broad assumption, and it is not an assumption on which the author's argument depends.

Let me know whether that clears this one up--thanks!

~Steve

[reop6780]

When i read this stimuli, Ithought the connection between "greasy" and "pesticide" had to be made for the conclusion.

I chose answer B believing that this supports the missing connection between two ceoncepts.

However the correct answer is A.

I dont understand why answer A must be assumed since washed apples does not support the conclusion that those apples are covered by pesticide.