#6 - A recent taste test reveals that most people like

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen­—CE. The correct answer choice is (D)

Here, the author discusses ice cream taste test results. For chocolate ice cream, people like the low-fat version just as much as full-fat chocolate ice cream. The same is not true for vanilla. People do not like low-fat vanilla as much as full-fat, citing low-fat vanilla’s harsher taste.

To explain this difference, the author points out that about 500 distinct chemical compounds produce the chocolate flavor, making it a very complex flavor. The author concludes that “this complexity probably masks any difference in taste due to the lack of fat.” This is a causal conclusion, which we can diagram as:


Complexity = complexity of the chocolate flavor
Difference = difference in taste due the lack of fact

Cause Effect

Complexity Difference


As with all causal conclusions on the LSAT, this conclusion is flawed. Here, the flaw is treating correlation as if it were causation. The author sees that chocolate has these two characteristics, flavor complexity and the taste test results, and infers that one causes the other. The author hedges a bit, saying the flavor complexity is probably the cause. Still, because there is not enough evidence to reach even that probabilistic conclusion, the argument is flawed.

We know from the question stem that this is a Strengthen question, so the correct answer choice will support the author’s causal conclusion. We take as fact that chocolate has a very complex flavor, and that the taste tests showed people liked low-fat chocolate ice cream as much as full-fat ice cream. We will not attack those facts. Instead we focus on the causality, that it is the complexity of the flavor that masks any difference in taste between low-fat and full-fat chocolate ice cream, and not something else.

There are several ways the answer choice could do this, and it does not benefit you to try to predict in advance what the correct answer choice will say. Instead, focus on two main ideas. First, an answer choice that rejects a possible alternate cause will strengthen the conclusion, while an answer that raises an alternate cause will weaken it.

Next, an answer choice that supports the regularity of the relationship between flavor complexity and masking differences in taste will support the conclusion. Here, the stimulus gives us a hint about what we can look for. The author raised the case of vanilla ice cream, but did not let us know whether vanilla, like chocolate, is a complex flavor. Since people do notice the difference between low-fat and full-fat vanilla ice cream, the correct answer could support the conclusion by telling us that vanilla is not a complex flavor. In other words, when the purported cause is absent, then the effect is absent too.

Answer choice (A): This comparison between full-fat chocolate and full-fat vanilla ice cream is not relevant to the author’s causal conclusion. We are looking for something to do with flavor complexity and masking a difference in taste.

Answer choice (B): Nothing in the stimulus told us that the test subjects’ knowledge of the difference in fat content would impact their taste preferences. So this answer will have no effect on the conclusion.

Answer choice (C): This answer choice is getting closer to what we need, because it references flavor complexity. However, it makes a comparison that is beside the point. Our concern is with the complexity of a flavor masking a difference in taste. The choice tells us that the more complex a taste, the better people like it.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice, because it addresses the regularity of the relationship between the cause and effect described in the conclusion. The stimulus told us that people did notice the difference between full-fat and low-fat vanilla ice cream. In the context of the causal conclusion, this evidence told us the effect was absent (Difference). This answer choice tells us that vanilla is not a complex flavor, meaning the cause is absent too (Complex). So, when the cause is absent, the effect is also absent, supporting the author’s causal conclusion.

Answer choice (E): As with answer choice (B), we have no reason to think that people’s knowledge impacts the causal relationship.

[deck1134]

If they did know that there was a difference in fat content, wouldn't that weaken the results of the taste test? That is a biased sample and could appear in a flaw question. Am I overthinking this one?

[Lsat180Please]

If they did know that there was a difference in fat content, wouldn't that weaken the results of the taste test? That is a biased sample and could appear in a flaw question. Am I overthinking this one?

I was thinking something similar to this. Doesn't B validate the survey in a way? thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

It's possible that if they did know about the fat content of everything they tasted, that might strengthen the argument, because they still felt differently about low-fat chocolate and low-fat vanilla. That might suggest even more that the difference in their opinion was due to the complexity of chocolate's flavor. You have to look at the causal nature of this argument, where the author thinks it's that complexity that causes the difference of opinions. Answer B doesn't eliminate an alternate cause, or suggest that the cause and effect may be reversed, and it really doesn't do much to help the data. It might help the data if in the cases of both chocolate and vanilla the subjects always preferred high fat over low fat or vice versa, because then we could eliminate knowledge of the fat content as an alternate cause for their preference, or a bias. But since chocolate and vanilla got different results, their knowledge or lack thereof doesn't seem to matter all that much. Answer D is better because it gives us a case of the cause and effect both being absent. Vanilla is not complex, and the taste difference is not masked.

[Lsat180Please]

It's possible that if they did know about the fat content of everything they tasted, that might strengthen the argument, because they still felt differently about low-fat chocolate and low-fat vanilla. That might suggest even more that the difference in their opinion was due to the complexity of chocolate's flavor. You have to look at the causal nature of this argument, where the author thinks it's that complexity that causes the difference of opinions. Answer B doesn't eliminate an alternate cause, or suggest that the cause and effect may be reversed, and it really doesn't do much to help the data. It might help the data if in the cases of both chocolate and vanilla the subjects always preferred high fat over low fat or vice versa, because then we could eliminate knowledge of the fat content as an alternate cause for their preference, or a bias. But since chocolate and vanilla got different results, their knowledge or lack thereof doesn't seem to matter all that much. Answer D is better because it gives us a case of the cause and effect both being absent. Vanilla is not complex, and the taste difference is not masked.

This was extremely helpful thank you! I have memorized the ways to strengthen and weaken causal relationships. I didnt really think about one method being stronger than the other per say. For example, here I saw that B strengthened the data by showing that the survey was not biased. But D is better because it eliminates an alternate cause. Is eliminating an alternate cause always stronger than showing the data is not flawed or is this going to be a case by case basis. Thanks!

[Brook Miscoski]

LSAT180Please,

On behalf of all of us, thank you for your compliment and appreciation.

[T.B.Justin]

Hey,

I have question for justifying the incorrect answer choice (C):

We do not know anything about the quantity of distinct compounds that are required to produce the flavor vanilla, is this relevant in the comparison to the conclusion, for all we know vanilla could have more distinct compounds than chocolate, therefore there would likely be another reason for the taste differential, so perhaps this is irrelevant.

Thank you, I value your input.

[Jay Donnell]

Hey T.B.!

Your turn toward seeing C as irrelevant was a correct one, due primarily to the fact that the big missing assumption in the argument is that we have no idea how complex the flavor of vanilla is in regard to how many distinct chemical compounds are needed to produce it.

D does an excellent job of filling that assumption in by saying that vanilla does in fact have a significantly lower level of complexity, and that lack of complexity can then help account for people's distaste of low-fat vanilla flavors. This helps to strengthen by the no cause, no effect mechanism, as the argument used high complexity as the cause of an indifference toward full-fat and low-fat chocolate flavors.

Since, as you correctly pointed out, we have no idea how many compounds make up the vanilla flavor, C can't be used to help the argument. If in fact vanilla had MORE chemical compounds than chocolate, this would work to weaken the argument, but as it stands, that uncertainty leaves C as a poor answer for either question type.

Hope that helps!

[ssnasir]

Hi there,

I just wanted to see if my reasoning is in the right place. I disregarded C because I thought that this was sort of already implied in the argument? We know that people like low fat chocolate just as much as full fat and complexity of flavor masks taste difference which is why people liked low fat just as much full fat (and since chocolate is very complex it makes sense that they would like it). It seemed that complexity suggests liking. I might be way off so I would appreciate any help!

Thank you!

[Jeremy Press]

Hi ssnasir,

I'd give a couple reasons why answer choice C doesn't strengthen the argument, including the very good answer that Jay gave above: which is primarily that, since we don't know how many chemical compounds vanilla contains, the effect of the answer on the argument is highly uncertain.

Here's another reason why answer choice C doesn't actually do anything to this argument: the argument is not about why people generally like chocolate ice cream (or vanilla ice cream). It's about why they like low-fat chocolate ice cream as much as regular chocolate ice cream. For all we know or care in the argument, people might like chocolate ice cream in general (low fat OR regular) because of its bittersweetness or its aroma or its color or a thousand other things not related to the compounds used to produce it. And it wouldn't really matter to what the argument is trying to persuade us about: that the role complexity plays in the comparison between low-fat and regular chocolate is one of masking any difference in flavor. So knowing people like a certain thing more when it's more complex wouldn't tell me that there's a masking effect that complexity has.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy