#14 - Food labeling regulation: Food of a type that does not

[Applesaid]

Having trouble understanding this question comprehensively. Neither could I properly diagram its underlying logical pattern.

However, my diagram is like below:

food without fat can be labeled ""nonfat" ---> most people mistakenly believe the food contains fat

people mistakenly believe the food contains fat + label states the food contains no fat ---> food can be labeled "nonfat"

Is that correct? Any other more effective way than diagramming to solve this question?

[Jacques Lamothe]

Hey Applesaid,

The information given in this question's stimulus is kind of tricky, so I don't think that you were wrong to diagram the information when you were having difficulty understanding it. Your diagrams look correct to me and you can definitely use them to answer the question. If you take the contrapositive of your first conditional to make "most people do not mistakingly believe that a food has fat" --> "food without fat cannot be labeled non-fat," we can determine that answer choice (D) violates that rule. I think this was an effective way of approaching the question.

I hope that helps!

Jacques

[prep88]

Hi everyone!

I am having difficulty to make conditional diagram for this one. Could anyone deconstruct it for me?

Thank you!

[nicolle828]

Hi prep88,

This is an interesting question. Using the Unless Equation, the term modified by "unless" becomes the necessary condition. In this case it is, "most people mistakenly believe the food ordinarily contains fat" is the necessary condition. The remaining term is then negated and becomes the sufficient condition. In this case is it, "food of a type that does not ordinarily contain fat CAN be labeled 'nonfat'." In the second sentence of the stimulus, the necessary condition from our first sentence is used in a second conditional relationship: If most people mistakenly believe a food contains fat, then the food may be labeled "nonfat" if the label states that the food ordinarily contains no fat. So to state it more simply by connecting the chain that is created by the two conditions: If most people mistakenly believe a food ordinarily contains fat, then food that does not ordinarily contain fat can be labeled "nonfat" if the label states that the food ordinarily contains no fat.

Now the question stem asks which of the five answers violates this relationship and is, therefore, a CANNOT BE TRUE question.

Answers A and B do not label the products as "nonfat" so are losers. Answer C is a food with fat so is a loser. Answer D violates the rules because most people are aware that applesauce contains no fat, but the label reads "nonfat" anyway so D is correct. Answer E reads exactly according to the rule so is a loser.

I hope this helps!

Nicolle

[prep88]

Hi Nicolle, This is very helpful! So, it's ok that the necessary condition contains an if statement within?

Thanks!

[Robert Carroll]

prep,

The general pattern of the second sentence is "If A, then if B then C." It's ok for a necessary condition (or a sufficient condition, for that matter) to itself be a conditional. It's helpful to examine what this means. A is sufficient to make the conditional "if B then C" necessary. A simpler way to express this is as follows:

A and B C

Since A does not make C necessary on its on, but only does so when accompanied by B (because then the sufficient condition of the conditional embedded in the necessary condition is then fulfilled), "If A, then if B then C" is equivalent to a conditional with "A and B" as sufficient condition and "C" as necessary condition.

I hope that makes sense. Another way to look at it is to ask yourself: If A happens, what else must happen? Since the conditional "if B then C" is necessary for A, you don't know anything further until you know whether B happens; only at that point can you be sure that C, the final necessary condition, itself happens.

Either way of viewing the conditional means the same as the other, so use the one that is easier to understand.

In short, it's fine that the necessary condition contains an if statement within it. As long as you understand what that means, as above, it's fine.

Robert Carroll

[prep88]

Thank you, this is very helpful!

[Dave Killoran]

Hey Prep,

If you don't mind, I would like to add an additional comment to what Robert wrote above (which was spot on). You asked the following:

So, it's ok that the necessary condition contains an if statement within?

Thanks!

"If" is used so often to introduce sufficient conditions that it has become almost inevitably associated with sufficiency. But, "if" is also used so frequently that you have to be careful with it in general. Sometimes that's because the author isn't really trying to convey a conditional idea, but also because there are times "if" appears with other words that transform the condition into a necessary one. The classic example? That would be the phrase "only if." "Only if" is a phrase you see often, and it's a great example of a conditional indicator that uses "if" but still indicates a necessary condition.

As always, the rule is that you can't just glance at certain words on the LSAT and automatically assume you know exactly how they are being used (One of my other favorite example: the use of "support" in question stems: that could be a Must type of question or a Strengthen question). Each situation has to be evaluated on the given information, and be wary of the test makers using familiar words in unfamiliar ways.

Thanks!

[prep88]

Thank you Dave! I'll make sure to remember this!

[karen_k]

Hi,

I am quite lost on this question. I was especially confused by the second sentence in the stimulus and wasn't sure how to diagram it and go on to answer it. Any clarification would be greatly appreciated!