#26 - Must Be True, Purpose

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

The correct answer choice is (C)

The author’s goal in the passage is to correct the scientists’ assumption that wine is like other alcoholic beverages by showing that it has beneficial properties that other alcoholic beverages do not.

[ivan.l99]

Any good way to differentiate between choices C & A?

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi ivan,

There are a few major differences between answer choice (A) and answer choice (C). The main issue here though is that the author is not really advocating for a treatment. Medical treatment is discussed, but only as a minor issue and as support for his theory about grapes/wine. The author isn't arguing that one should treat any particular medical issue with wine. Rather, the author argues that wine can have certain health benefits in moderation. Answer choice (C), on the other hand, is a better description for the author's purpose. They are arguing that the long-held scientific belief that wine is the same as other alcohols, while in reality, there's evidence that perhaps not all alcohol is the same. The author is correcting the old scientific view.

Hope that helps!

[LSATQueen2024]

Hi,

Can you explain the difference between Answer choices C and E? Why is E incorrect? Can you provide tips on identifying when the author is overly critical of a stance? What words would they typically use?

[Dana D]

Hey LSAT Queen,

Answer choice (C) says the author is correcting a scientific misconception. The word misconception tells us the author is presenting an idea which is counter to a commonly held belief in the scientific community - in this case the idea that wine's effects are the same as other forms of alcoholic beverages. We see the author do this in the first paragraph, when they state what most scientists believe (line 1), before introducing this alternative idea that wine might have distinct properties from other alcohol (lines 7-12).

Answer (E) says the author is countering a revolutionary hypothesis. If this were the correct answer, what is the revolutionary hypothesis that our author is countering? The standard belief is that wine and other alcohols have the same health benefits, so the 'revolutionary hypothesis' must be the other idea discussed here - that wine might have its own, distinct, benefits. But our author is in support of that hypothesis, not countering it, so this cannot be the correct idea.

If we're looking for an author who is 'critical' versus 'correcting', we can look at how this author introduced the passage. They gave background information on the fact that scientists haven't researched the effects of wine much before, but then quickly move on to introducing why wine might be different. They acknowledge scientists have overlooked the possible healthful effects, but there is no critique of them for doing so.

If the author was criticizing a popular opinion, as Answer Choice (B) suggests, there would be more information on why the previously held belief that wine and alcohol both have no health effects was misguided or incorrect - we simply don't see that here. Rather, there is acknowledgement of what most scientists believe, and then an introduction of a new idea.