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

[PositiveThinker]

I did my best to read thru the earlier explanations but to no avail.


Why must the patron assume that the apples are washed at all? The patron simply says that the cafeteria is selling pesticide covered fruit and endangering patrons, and the fruit needs to be washed in order for that threat to be nullified. First part of answer choice A makes sense, "the apples that the cafeteria sells are not thoroughly washed".. but the second part "but they are washed before reaching the cafeteria" doesn't seem to be necessary at alll. Why does the patron have to assume they are ever washed prior to being sold?

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, PositiveThinker,

Good question! In fact, the patron has to assume that the fruits are not thoroughly washed before reaching the cafeteria for his argument to make sense.

In other words, you have correctly described the negation of answer choice (A), the necessary assumption.

If the patron were to know that the fruits were all thoroughly washed before being sold at the cafeteria, then his argument that the cafeteria is selling pesticide-covered fruit would make no sense!

Instead, the patron must believe that the fruits at the cafeteria are not thoroughly washed prior to sale to reach the conclusion that the cafeteria is selling pesticide-covered fruit.

Does this make sense? Please follow up with further questions. Thanks!

[PositiveThinker]

Ok i see I was on the right track. The language just tripped me up. I hope i don't see language like that again, and if I do, i hope i can just eliminate wrong answer choices.

[zpatton92]

I have read this thread carefully but still, I am not convinced by any of the explanations provided. In fact, I have come to the conclusion that either the LSAT author made an error in translating the meaning from the statement in answer choice A (or some other error in the question) or we have stumbled upon some sort of paradoxically nuanced aspect of the English language that the LSAT author has no business probing in an LSAT. Please, if you can, help me understand what I am missing.

The cafeteria patron's argument does not depend on the apples being washed. In fact, it appears that the patron's argument requires that the apples are not washed (or else the cafeteria wouldn't be selling pesticide covered fruit and endangering its patrons). Choice A is the probably the best choice since it states the apples are not washed after harvest. However, the language used suggests that the phrase "not washed after harvest" actually means something like, "not washed immediately after harvest"--or at least, the phrasing certainly does NOT suggest an absolute (i.e. "the apples were not washed anytime after harvest" since "anytime after harvest" means "after harvest"). Instead, "after" is used as a relative term comparing some segment of time beginning after event 1 to another segment of time ending before event 2. The meaning of the answer choice statement is something like, the apples were washed between harvesting and arriving at the cafeteria and perhaps closer to point in which they arrived at the cafeteria than to the point in which harvesting concluded. In essence, answer choice A means the apples were washed, which would clearly undermine the patron's argument or at the very least it is not an assumption on which the patron's argument depends. The only explanation I can come up with, although it is very, very charitable to the LSAT author--and still doesn't work well, is that answer choice A means something like, the apples were washed before harvest (the result of combining "the apples were not washed after harvest" and "the apples were washed before reaching the cafeteria"). Even still, to say the argument depends on the fruit being washed before harvest is a stretch. If the fruit were washed, they would have to be washed not just before harvest, but more specifically before the pesticide was sprayed for the last time for the apples to endanger the patrons. If you break it down into a conditional statement, as one of the instructors did earlier, I get something like, If it is one of the cafetaria's apples it was not washed after harvesting AND it was washed before reaching the cafeteria. The contrapositive could be: if the apple is washed after harvest or it was not washed before reaching the cafeteria it is not the cafeteria's apple--OR--maybe it could be: if the apple is not washed before harvest or it was washed after reaching the cafeteria it is not the cafeteria's apple). In both translations, the apple appears to be necessarily washed, in which case, if it were washed before the pesticide were sprayed, the patron's arguement is invalid.

I feel like I am losing my mind, but it is very important to me that I don't skip over questions I don't understand. Please, explain to me otherwise.

[James Finch]

Hi Z Patton,

Let me break down the reasoning and see if it helps:

Premise: Dangerous Washed, Washed Dangerous

Premise: Cafeteria doesn't wash its apples

Conclusion: WashedCafeteria DangerousCafeteria

Seems to make sense, the conclusion is the contrapositive of the premise and plugs in a known sufficient condition. The problem lies in the subscript: there's a chain of custody of these apples, one that isn't entirely certain. We are told that growers put pesticides on them, making them dangerous until they are washed, and that the cafeteria where they are served doesn't wash them itself. But we don't know anything about what happens to them between harvesting and the cafeteria.

To show how (A) works, we can use the Assumption Negation technique, which is especially useful on Defender Assumptions like we have here. So:

Apples Washed Between Harvest and Cafeteria DangerousCafeteria

This works perfectly, meaning it is the correct answer choice.

[LSAT2018]

I understand why (A) is the correct answer but I would like to clarify whether this argument is has more than one necessary assumption. The stimulus reads, 'most fruit is sprayed with dangerous pesticides before it is harvested, and is dangerous until it is washed' but I didn't feel that it was clear that this pertained specifically to the greasy apples in the cafeteria, so I thought a Supporter Assumption was needed. While (B) and (D) do link these two, they were strongly worded. Is the link implied in answer (B)?

[hassan66]

This definitely isn't one of my favorite questions but after reading through the thread I think I have more clarity. But just for further clarification between A and B:

B) we can't say that most pesticides that are sprayed have a greasy residue. We know that most fruit is sprayed with dangerous pesticides (so can we say that most pesticides that are sprayed on fruit are dangerous until washed?). But just because they are dangerous doesn't mean they leave behind a greasy residue. We only know that some of the fruit sprayed with a dangerous pesticide leave behind a greasy pesticide (we only know about apples).

A) If we negated this, just by taking out the "not" then it reads, "the apples that the cafeteria sells are thoroughly washed after harvest but before reaching the cafeteria." So this gives us the time frame that other posters referenced. The apples are washed between harvesting and reaching the cafeteria. But we know this can't be true because by the time they reach the cafeteria, they still have the residue and the cafeteria doesn't wash them so this can't be true.
When we leave the "not" in, we negate what we had negated. So that time frame we referenced, the apples must be washed between harvesting and reaching the cafeteria, can't be true. So the apples aren't washed.

Are there any other examples of similar LSAT questions? I would love more practice so I can become more familiar with this type of phrasing. The more I practice with the LSAT, the more I see how it really could prepare you for law school/career as a lawyer. This is just the type of trippy language I would expect to see in a contract!

[Dave Killoran]

I understand why (A) is the correct answer but I would like to clarify whether this argument is has more than one necessary assumption. The stimulus reads, 'most fruit is sprayed with dangerous pesticides before it is harvested, and is dangerous until it is washed' but I didn't feel that it was clear that this pertained specifically to the greasy apples in the cafeteria, so I thought a Supporter Assumption was needed. While (B) and (D) do link these two, they were strongly worded. Is the link implied in answer (B)?

Hi LSAT!

If you read through the earlier responses, you'll see that I noted that (B) would be correct if the word "most" was changed to "some." So, it's too strong in it's current form, but it's close to a correct idea.

To your broader point, every argument has multiple necessary assumptions; it just depends on how basic you want to get with the concepts. In every case then, LSAC simply chooses the assumption they wish to test, and they always leave some assumptions unrecognized/untested.

Thanks!

[Dave Killoran]

This definitely isn't one of my favorite questions but after reading through the thread I think I have more clarity. But just for further clarification between A and B:

Thanks Hassan, see my answers below!

B) we can't say that most pesticides that are sprayed have a greasy residue. We know that most fruit is sprayed with dangerous pesticides (so can we say that most pesticides that are sprayed on fruit are dangerous until washed?). But just because they are dangerous doesn't mean they leave behind a greasy residue. We only know that some of the fruit sprayed with a dangerous pesticide leave behind a greasy pesticide (we only know about apples).

The "most pesticides" in this answer choice is the problem; if it was "some pesticides" then this would be correct.

A) If we negated this, just by taking out the "not" then it reads, "the apples that the cafeteria sells are thoroughly washed after harvest but before reaching the cafeteria." So this gives us the time frame that other posters referenced. The apples are washed between harvesting and reaching the cafeteria. But we know this can't be true because by the time they reach the cafeteria, they still have the residue and the cafeteria doesn't wash them so this can't be true.
When we leave the "not" in, we negate what we had negated. So that time frame we referenced, the apples must be washed between harvesting and reaching the cafeteria, can't be true. So the apples aren't washed.

If I'm following you correctly, yes, this makes sense.

Are there any other examples of similar LSAT questions? I would love more practice so I can become more familiar with this type of phrasing. The more I practice with the LSAT, the more I see how it really could prepare you for law school/career as a lawyer. This is just the type of trippy language I would expect to see in a contract!

Tons of questions rely on tricky language and shifts in concept, but far fewer feature the real difficulty in this question: the time-frame dependent wording of answer choice (A). Off the top of my head I can't think of an exact parallel, but the more assumption questions you do, the more you will see similarities to the general ideas here

[T.B.Justin]

Hi Laura,

Great question. The word "but" here just indicates the two ends of a time period. Think of the ends of string. "I took the train after breakfast but before lunch." Here, "breakfast" is one end of the string and "lunch" is on the other end. I took the train sometime between those ends. It can be helpful to make a note on your test when you see this again. You can write something like "Harvest |-------| Cafeteria" so you can clearly visualize the time period. Answer choice (A) is saying that the apples were NOT washed during that time. So with the Assumption Negation technique, you ask yourself "What would happen if the apples WERE harvested during that time?" Well, the pesticides would be washed off and the author's conclusion "Clearly, the cafeteria is selling pesticide covered fruit, thereby endangering its patrons" would be undermined.

Hope this helps. I like the way you're thinking - look at each question as an opportunity to learn skills and techniques you can apply on test day.

This is the way I was thinking about the way answer choice 'A' is worded. I accept this way of thinking about this!

Lots of deep thoughts about this