#20 - Pretzels can cause cavities. Interestingly, the longer

[MeriB]

Hi!

Aren't we supposed to accept everything given to us in the premises on the LSAT as true? So if I accept "what is true of pretzels in this regard is true of caramels" as, in fact, true, then how am I supposed to turn around and select A? Doesn't A deny the truth of what was flat out told to us in the stimulus?

Thank you,
Meri

[Adam Tyson]

The thing that we have to accept as true, Meri, is that the longer a caramel is in contact with the teeth, the greater likelihood that a cavity will result. That's not in doubt here. But just because that is true about both pretzels and caramels, it is still not necessarily true that pretzels and caramels start off as equals in the cavity-causing business. Perhaps the caramels are much, much worse to begin with? Dissolving faster is good, but they still could be much more damaging to teeth than pretzels are. So what is true within the category of pretzels (longer contact is more damaging) and within the category of caramels (same) need not be true across categories (pretzels in contact longer do not have to be more damaging than caramels in contact for less time).

By way of analogy, and to have a little fun, consider this:

The more time I spend with my neighbor whose politics I cannot stand, the angrier I get. The same goes for spending time with my mother-in-law - if I spend time with her, the longer we are together the madder I get. But my neighbor usually goes away quickly, while my mother-in-law hangs around for days and weeks at a time, so I'm less likely to get really mad around my neighbor than around my mother-in-law.

Nope, false. My neighbor makes me boiling mad, spitting nails, almost immediately, while my mother-in-law is tolerable and even pleasant for long stretches before I get to a point where I am mad enough to want her to leave. What is true for each of them individually is not necessarily true about them in comparison to each other.