#18 - Nutritionist: Because humans have evolved very little

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Method of Reasoning—AP. The correct answer choice is (D)

The nutritionist’s argument in this stimulus is as follows:

Human have evolved little since the advent of agriculture

Thus, humans are still suited to a basic diet of wild foods, and straying is bad

Thus, the more wild foods, the healthier we will be (this is the main conclusion)

The question asks for the role played by the claim that we are still suited to a basic diet of wild foods. We can see from the diagram above, that it is a conclusion based on the first premise, and it is a premise in support of the main conclusion. So correct answer choice (D) presents an accurate description: it is an intermediate conclusion (also called a secondary or subsidiary conclusion), which is supported by the first premise diagrammed above, and which in turn supports the main conclusion of the argument, which is that the more wild foods we eat, the healthier we will be.

Answer choice (A) is inaccurate because the referenced claim is also supported by the fact that humans have evolved little since the advent of agriculture.

Answer choice (B) is incorrect, because there is support provided for this premise, as discussed above.

Answer choice (C) is incorrect, because the conclusion is not intended to explain this claim. Rather, this claim, that we are still suited to a wild food diet, is offered in support of the main conclusion.

Answer choice (E) is incorrect, because the referenced claim is a premise which is supported by the claim of limited evolution, not the other way around as suggested by this incorrect answer choice.

[Mi Kal]

Hi,

Why is "Thus, the more our diet consists of wild foods, the healthier we will be." the Conclusion?

According to Page 459 of the Logical Reasoning Bible (2017) "Method AP questions often feature...not prefaced by an indicator.", it states a totally different rationale for noticing the Conclusion of a Method of Reasoning-Argument Part question.

Based on that paragraph, keying in on the fact that the Conclusion with the Indicator (the Conclusion that I would normally pick as the Conclusion) is not the Main Conclusion and the Main Conclusion is found elsewhere (in the first or second sentence) how are we ever supposed to figure out how to determine the Conclusion if the Conclusion can be anything? It is hard enough to determine what the Conclusion is when there is no Indicator word present in the Stimulus, but when the Indicator is typically associated with the Subsidiary Conclusion and the Main Conclusion is known to not contain an Indicator, as in the Method of Reasoning-Argument Part questions then they reverse it on you, what are we supposed to do? How do you handle that? How do you determine the Conclusion especially when the Conclusion Identification Method doesn't help either?

Thanks.

Michael

[AthenaDalton]

Hi Michael,

Good question!

When conclusion indicators aren't present, you can think about what parts of the argument support each other. You may have heard the analogy in class that arguments are built like houses -- the premises are the walls, which in turn hold up the conclusion (the roof).

To identify a conclusion, you can ask yourself, do the other parts of the argument support it? Here, two phrases support the statement that "humans are still biologically adapted to eating wild foods:" (1) humans haven't evolved significantly since agriculture was developed and (2) straying from a diet of wild foods leads to illness. I find it useful to mentally insert the word "therefore" in front of a phrase to see if it sounds like a conclusion. Here, that would look like:

Humans haven't evolved since agriculture was developed. Humans who stray from eating wild foods have become sick. Therefore, humans are still biologically adapted to eating wild foods.

If you put the word "therefore" in front of the other two phrases, it wouldn't make much sense.

As you mentioned, the last sentence is introduced by a conclusion indicator ("thus") so it's easy to identify as a conclusion.

This leaves us with the question of which of the two conclusions is the main one, and which is the intermediate one. To tackle this, again consider which one supports the other. Given the length of a Logical Reasoning question, there isn't enough space to develop and support two independent conclusions -- one will be subsidiary to the other.

Here, the nutritionist offers two facts to show that humans are still biologically adapted to eating wild foods (evolution and diet-related illness). The nutritionist then throws out the statement that if we eat more wild foods, we will be healthier. The nutritionist's statement doesn't support the conclusion that humans are biologically adapted to eating wild foods. We already have info that eating a non-wild diet leads to illness, so this additional statement (eat more wild foods; be healthier) would not lend additional support to the conclusion that humans are biologically adapted to eating wild foods.

However, the statement that "humans are biologically adapted to eating wild foods" does support the admonition to eat a diet of more wild foods to enjoy greater health. It's a key fact that supports the recommendation to eat wild foods.

I hope this approach helps clear things up. Good luck studying!

[Mi Kal]

Hi Athena,

Thank you for your explanation. If I put "therefore" in front of any of the sentences they all seem to work for me, depending on what I am attempting to conclude and I don't think I could possibly know what the author is trying to conclude. The Logical Reasoning Bible clearly states that a different set of rules apply to the Method of Reasoning Argument Part Questions. But, apparently, those rules do not apply to this question. At this point, I am really confused by all this, especially this Stimulus.

Thank you for trying.

Michael

[AthenaDalton]

Hi Mi Kal,

This is a tough question! Don't be too hard on yourself.

Your approach in looking for structure indicator words is a good one. Here, the word "thus" sets off the main conclusion ("the more our diet consists of wild foods, the healthier we will be"), and you were right to hone in on it in your initial approach. Even just identifying this sentence as the main conclusion is a good start, even if this is not the sentence the prompt asks about.

If you're having trouble untangling the parts of an argument, it's ok to fall back on approaches that work for all LR reasoning questions, like narrowing your answer choices by cutting out clearly incorrect answers.

Here are some other guidelines you might find helpful:

http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/argument-part-questions

Best,

Athena

[Mi Kal]

Thanks Athena