hard · LSAT
It is widely believed that eating organic vegetables is healthier than eating conventionally grown ones. However, a recent comprehensive study of nutrient levels found no statistically significant difference in the vitamin and mineral content between the two groups of vegetables. Therefore, the belief that organic vegetables provide superior health benefits is unfounded.
Which of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
- Any health advantage vegetables confer comes mainly from their vitamin and mineral content, not from avoiding synthetic pesticides.
- The nutritional content of a vegetable is the sole determinant of its overall quality.
- Synthetic pesticides used in conventional farming have never been shown to cause lasting harm to human health.
- Most buyers of organic produce are motivated chiefly by concern over conventional farming's environmental effects.
- Consumers are generally unable to taste any difference between organic and conventional vegetables.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT practice
- Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
- The author's use of the word "demonstrates" most strongly suggests that the author's attit
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the statements above?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship the statement establ
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?