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

[LSAT2018]

I have several questions regarding the question, and the first is that the answers all relate to the first conditional sentence:
Labeled Nonfat → Mistakenly Believed
Not Mistakenly Believed → Not Labeled Nonfat

And my second question is, the second sentence cannot be considered for the answers here because there are two sufficient statements, and none of the answers refer to both of them, only one sufficient condition?

And my third question is, the conditional statement contains the word 'most' but wouldn't the contrapositive be 'not most'? And so the correct answer (D) is a contrapositive but still has 'most'.


Thanks in advance! I really appreciate it!

[James Finch]

Hi Jessica and LSAT,

This question is very difficult for a couple reasons. First, the second sentence in the stimulus is extremely confusing after the first relatively simple conditional setup, using normally sufficient condition indicators for necessary conditions, and secondly the similar answer choices that differ in scope requiring parsing out very precise wording.

The stimulus first gives us that, for foods that ordinarily don't contain fat (ONF), they can't be labeled "nonfat" (LN) unless most people mistakenly believe the food ordinarily contains fat (MPMBFOCF). As this statement contains an Unless Equation statement with certainty, we can diagram it as follows:

LNONF MPMBFOCF

and its contrapositive:

MPMBFOCF LNONF

Then we have the confounding second sentence. This is written specifically to trip people up, but is effectively just adding a second necessary condition to the conditional relationship we were just given. How? By introducing the uncertain but permissive "may" (the importance of the distinction between "may" and "shall" will be hammered home in law school), that means that any situation where a product ordinarily lacking fat is labeled nonfat will, according to the regulation, have "most people mistakenly believing that it ordinarily contains fat" and that "the label also states that the food ordinarily contains no fat." (LSONF) So our final diagram ends up looking like:

LNONF MPMBFOCF + LSONF
and contrapositively

MPMBFOCF or LSONF LNONF

Then we're asked to figure out which of the answer choices violates the regulations, meaning it cannot accord with our diagram. Let's look at the answer choices:

(A)--Diagrams out to MPMBFOCF LN, in accordance with our diagram, so a wrong answer choice.

(B)--Similar to (A), but with a slight twist: it's dealing with a product that ordinarily does contain fat, so it's out-of-scope and thus cannot violate the regulation we've been given in the stimulus.

(C)--Same issue as (B).

(D)--Diagrams out to MPMBFOCF LN, a clear violation of our rule, and thus the correct answer choice.

(E)--Diagrams out to MPMBFOCF LSONF. While it doesn't have to be true, as there is no requirement to label salsas as "nonfat" even if most people mistakenly believe they contain fat, it certainly may be true according to the stimulus, making this answer choice incorrect.

I hope that clears things up!

[Julie777]

Hi Jessica and LSAT,

This question is very difficult for a couple reasons. First, the second sentence in the stimulus is extremely confusing after the first relatively simple conditional setup, using normally sufficient condition indicators for necessary conditions, and secondly the similar answer choices that differ in scope requiring parsing out very precise wording.

The stimulus first gives us that, for foods that ordinarily don't contain fat (ONF), they can't be labeled "nonfat" (LN) unless most people mistakenly believe the food ordinarily contains fat (MPMBFOCF). As this statement contains an Unless Equation statement with certainty, we can diagram it as follows:

LNONF MPMBFOCF

and its contrapositive:

MPMBFOCF LNONF

Then we have the confounding second sentence. This is written specifically to trip people up, but is effectively just adding a second necessary condition to the conditional relationship we were just given. How? By introducing the uncertain but permissive "may" (the importance of the distinction between "may" and "shall" will be hammered home in law school), that means that any situation where a product ordinarily lacking fat is labeled nonfat will, according to the regulation, have "most people mistakenly believing that it ordinarily contains fat" and that "the label also states that the food ordinarily contains no fat." (LSONF) So our final diagram ends up looking like:

LNONF MPMBFOCF + LSONF
and contrapositively

MPMBFOCF or LSONF LNONF

Then we're asked to figure out which of the answer choices violates the regulations, meaning it cannot accord with our diagram. Let's look at the answer choices:

(A)--Diagrams out to MPMBFOCF LN, in accordance with our diagram, so a wrong answer choice.

(B)--Similar to (A), but with a slight twist: it's dealing with a product that ordinarily does contain fat, so it's out-of-scope and thus cannot violate the regulation we've been given in the stimulus.

(C)--Same issue as (B).

(D)--Diagrams out to MPMBFOCF LN, a clear violation of our rule, and thus the correct answer choice.

(E)--Diagrams out to MPMBFOCF LSONF. While it doesn't have to be true, as there is no requirement to label salsas as "nonfat" even if most people mistakenly believe they contain fat, it certainly may be true according to the stimulus, making this answer choice incorrect.

I hope that clears things up!

Hello! I have question about your explanation of (B). You said this statement is dealing with food that ordinarily contains fat. But here's how I understand it.

I think it matches our scope, a product that contain NO FAT.

But people believe the food ordinarily contains fat, and it is not labeled "nonfat."

But we have to consider one more condition if this has to be false, "label also states that the food ordinarily contains no fat." Answer choice (B) doesn't mention about it at all. So that's why this statement can be true if that condition is false.

I want to check if my thought process makes sense! Thanks!!

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Julie,

I think that you may be missing a small but important piece on information in both of our regulations.

Each rule specifies that we are discussing "food of a type that does not ordinarily contain fat" and that "people mistakenly believe that the food ordinarily contains fat" (my emphasis).

Given that, food that does ordinarily contain fat (such as lasagna in Answer B) is outside the scope of these regulations and therefore does not violate these regulations.

In addition, notice that neither regulation ever says that a food must be labeled nonfat; instead they only specify when a food cannot be labeled nonfat and when it is allowed (but not required) to be labeled nonfat. Because of this, any food that is not labeled nonfat cannot violate these rules (even if the food is nonfat). In other words, not labeling something as "nonfat" is always completely fine according to these regulations.