hard · LSAT Logical Reasoning
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 measured nutritional content of a vegetable is the sole determinant of its overall dietary quality for the consumers who eat it.
- The synthetic pesticides used in conventional farming have never once been shown to cause any lasting harm to human health at all.
- Most buyers of organic produce are motivated chiefly by a stated concern over conventional farming's broader environmental effects.
- Ordinary consumers are generally unable to taste any reliable difference between organic and conventionally grown fresh vegetables.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- 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?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these premises?
- Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the authors' conclusion?
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- 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