#4 - In an attempt to counter complaints that a certain

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Weaken. The correct answer choice is (B)

This stimulus presents a manufacturer's defense of its toxic product: ounce for ounce, it is less toxic than that found in mouthwash. We should immediately consider—is this a fair comparison? The correct answer to this weaken question will likely somehow show that this comparison does not appropriately reflect the danger of the toxin as used in the pesticide.

Answer choice (A): This answer choice, which concerns products other than the pesticide and the mouthwash, is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the pesticide manufacturer's defense.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. If we don't tend to ingest much mouthwash, then the presence of certain toxins in mouthwash might be irrelevant. And if we eat the vegetables, including the toxins, then those vegetables could have a smaller amount of toxin which could still be dangerous when consumed.

Answer choice (C): The manufacturer might take many safety precautions, but that doesn't make the toxin less inherently dangerous when used in pesticide.

Answer choice (D): This answer choice deals with how long it takes for the toxin to do its damage. This does not weaken the manufacturer's implication that the pesticides are safe based on having toxin levels lower than those of mouthwash.

Answer choice (E): Like answer choice (C) above, the precautions that have been taken do not increase or lower the level of current toxicity of pesticides, this choice does not affect the assertion from the stimulus, so this answer choice is incorrect.

[gmiller2]

Hello!

Just want to make sure I have the right rationale for this answer. I was deciding between b and d but eventually chose b because I thought it addressed the issue of "edible plants " vs. mouth wash not being ingested in equal quantities to draw the conclusion.

Would d be considered a shell answer?I felt like it was close but didn't quite address the reasoning of the ad to make that conclusion at the end If the stimulus.

Thanks in advance!

[Alex Bodaken]

gmiller2,

In some ways, this is a shell game answer - you are right to note that the concept in answer choice (D), when it mentions the length of time the toxin needs to take effect in mouthwash vs. pesticides, is similar to, but not the same as, the concept in the stimulus of the levels of toxicity.

I also think there is another key weakness in answer choice (D). If it is true that, as answer choice (D) says, "On average, the toxins present in the pesticide take longer than the toxins present in mouthwash to reach harmful levels in the human body," then that actually would *support,* not weaken the manufacturers argument that the toxin in the pesticide is not as harmful as the one in mouthwash. Again - because it is talking about length of time and not amount of toxicity, it is wrong right off the bat as a shell game answer, but even if the stimulus was talking about length of time, this answer would strengthen, not weaken, the manufacturer's argument.

Hope that helps!
AB

[LSAT2020]

I fell for answer choice A. I interpreted it to mean that mouthwash is meant for external use just like nail polish and other cosmetics and thus wasn't a fair comparison with pesticide (e.g. since pesticide is being indirectly ingested through food).

I am still struggling to see how B is correct. B seems focused on the quantity of toxins being ingested. How does the quantity of people consuming either the mouthwash or pesticide affect the level of toxins being ingested by a single person?

[Adam Tyson]

You're overlooking that the stimulus says "on average," LSAT2020. That means it IS talking about the amount ingested by a single person! Answer B is attacking the comparison by suggesting that even if an ounce of the active ingredient in mouthwash is more toxic than an ounce of the active ingredient in the pesticide, people will ingest much more of the pesticide ingredient than the mouthwash ingredient. Perhaps because people do not ingest mouthwash, or they do so only in very small quantities? Or perhaps because mouthwash has only a small amount of its active ingredient while the edible plants contain much larger quantities of the ingredient in pesticides?

In other words, we shouldn't be comparing an ounce of one to an once of the other. We should be comparing the amount of each consumed by an average individual.