hard · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Nutritionist: A diet is nutritionally adequate only if it supplies enough iron. Since the Kestrel diet plan supplies more than enough iron for an average adult, and since every nutritionally adequate diet plan on the market has been independently reviewed by a registered dietitian, the Kestrel diet plan must have been independently reviewed by a registered dietitian.
The nutritionist's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
- treats iron sufficiency as though it guaranteed adequacy, rather than being merely required for it
- presumes that dietitians review only plans already known to be adequate
- never rules out that unreviewed plans might also supply enough iron for adults
- overlooks that a diet could be nutritionally adequate without ever being reviewed at all by any dietitian
- confuses independent review with sufficiency for adequacy, not necessity
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these statements?
- 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?
- Which one of the following must be true given the statement above?