#14 - Consumer advocate: Tropical oils are high in saturated

[Dave Killoran]

Complete Question Explanation

Point at Issue. The correct answer choice is (E)

The consumer advocate argues that publicity about tropical oils would be beneficial since it would persuade people to reduce their use of tropical oils for the better. The nutritionist argues that since tropical oils are not the primary source of saturated fat in the average diet, focusing attention on the hazards of tropical oils would be counterproductive because it would lead people to believe that they had changed their diets sufficiently.

Again, several answer choices contain statements that both speakers would agree with. Answer choices (A), (B), and (D) contain statements where both speakers would say, “I agree, the statement is correct.”

One type of wrong answer involves statements where the opinion of one of the speakers is unknown. Answer choice (C) contains a statement that the nutritionist would agree with, but the consumer advocate’s position is unknown. The consumer advocate did not address the subject of meat in the diet, and since we cannot determine that the two speakers would definitely disagree, answer choice (C) is incorrect.

At this point, having definitively eliminated answer choices (A) through (D), you could feel somewhat comfortable that answer choice (E) has merit. But, most students are caught off-guard because (E) appears to address a seemingly irrelevant issue.

In answer choice (E), the consumer advocate would agree with the statement and the nutritionist would disagree with the statement. Thus, answer choice (E) passes the Agree/Disagree Test and is correct. This answer surprises many students because they felt the disagreement was over fat in the diet. But let’s re-examine the conclusion of each speaker, with italics indicating the real disagreement:

• Consumer advocate’s conclusion: Therefore, intensive publicity about the disadvantage of tropical oils will be likely to result in dietary changes that will diminish many people’s risk of developing heart disease.
  
  Nutritionist’s conclusion: Thus, focusing attention on the health hazards of tropical oils would be counterproductive, because it would encourage people to believe that more substantial dietary changes are unnecessary.

Both conclusions address the focus of attention or publicity, and a glance through the answer choices shows that only answer choice (E) addresses a similar topic. Remember, when a conclusion is present you must identify it regardless of the type of question!

[jschutsky]

Hi,

Would like to get an explanation for a point of issue question from prep test 4, 2/92, LR 2, # 14.
I selected choice A. could you explain why this is incorrect and choice E in correct.

Thank you.

Jeff

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Jeff,

A quick question: are you in one of the PowerScore courses or do you have the LSAT Logical Reasoning Bible? That will help us with the explanation.

Thanks!

[na02]

I originally chose C because I thought the point of issue was tropical oils vs. meat.
I'd taken the Nutritionist to say: Since the major sources of SF is in meat, it would be of "more benefit" to focus on reducing meat (which I sense doesn't pass the Fact Test since it doesn't mention in the stimulus).
But how would one get to the answer E? I don't see where I would get "public-health strategy" from the Nutritionist.
(p.s. I've just started studying with the Bibles and am planning to take the LSAT in October)

Many thanks!

[Brook Miscoski]

NAO2,

The way to keep yourself on track is to remember that with a point at issue question the correct choice must describe both of the arguments. Since the consumer advocate never mentioned meat, (C) is wrong. On the other hand, the consumer advocate clearly believes that a strategy focused on tropical oils is a good choice, while the nutritionist clearly believes that strategy is a bad choice. That's answer choice (E).

In general, never pick a choice that introduces an explicitly non-considered topic (meat) because another choice has some abstract wording you're not sure about. In this case, the nutritionist is responding to the consumer advocate's claim about "intensive publicity," and both of them are talking about what the public does and what is good for the people in general. "Public health strategy" is what they are discussing.

[lemonade42]

Can you explain why (A) and (D) contain statements where both speakers would say, "I agree, the statement is correct"?
This is what I thought:
(A) is incorrect because we know the consumer advocate (CA) would agree because CA says "tropical oils... increase risk of heart disease". We don't know the opinion that the nutritionist would have about (A) because the nutritionist doesn't mention anything related to heart disease. Or are we assuming that the "health hazards" is the heart disease risk? "Health hazards" seemed very broad, so I didn't know if we could apply it to heart disease.
(D) is incorrect because we know that CA would agree because CA says tropical oils can be replaced with healthier alternatives which can diminish risk of heart disease. We don't know the opinion that the nutritionist would have about (D) because he doesn't say specifically that replacing tropical oils can lead to a healthier diet. He only says that focusing on tropical oils would encourage people to believe that more substantial dietary changes are unnecessary.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi lemonade,

I agree that the nutritionist doesn't specifically address the risk of heart disease (mentioned in Answer A).

We also don't know whether the nutritionist would agree that some people's diets could be made significantly healthier by replacing all tropical oils with vegetable oils (mentioned in Answer D). The nutritionist doesn't think replacing tropical oils would make a significant health improvement in most North American diets, which is why it would be counterproductive, but it may significantly help some people if they consume a lot of tropical oils.

One word of caution though, it's important in these Point at Issue question to read the second speaker's statement in the context of responding to the first speaker. The reason is that often the second speaker's views are implied rather than outright stated.

For these questions (like all LR questions), it is best to prephrase. Here, the main debate is not about whether tropical oils have saturated fat or whether saturated fats are unhealthy, instead it is about whether focusing on the health problems of tropical oils in public ads is a good or bad idea, as expressed in Answer E.

[lemonade42]

I see, that makes sense! Thank you!