Q22 - When butterfat was considered

[pistachio2014]

Hi, I don't fully understand why (E) is the correct answer. Is it because (E) is saying that the people who deterred from eating "imitation butter" because of the name have already found different (non-butter) alternatives that even if the industry changes the product name to "lite butter," if doesn't matter since the customers already found an alternative. Thanks!

[aileenann]

Exactly. It suggests that no harm is being done by not giving the "imitation butter" a lighter/liter sounding name. Therefore it undermines the argument by saying that there's another, probably better way to encourage the public to eat foods with lower butterfat content and lower cholesterol more generally - we don't need to find a nicer way to talk about butterfat substitutes - the public has already made an even better choice than the recommended change would encourage, and why would we want to do that? It would be silly.

I hope that helps. Please let us know if you have more questions or comments

[cooldog720]

can you please explain why answer C is wrong? If individuals are NOT deterred from using 'imitation butter', they will also NOT be deterred from 'lite butter' which makes the manufacturers' name change somewhat meaningless?

Thanks!

[yama_sekander]

initially, i thought C could be a possibility, but looking back at the stimulus, it states that "...with its connotations of falsity deters MANY people from purchasing products..."


in the lsat world, MANY= SOME. so,some people may be deterred and some may not

so, when you take this into account, C wouldn't weaken the argument because it states that "SOME individuals who need to reduce their intake of cholesterol are not deterred...". the argument gives room to allow this, and would therefore, not weaken the argument


hope this helps!

[bbirdwell]

Thanks for chiming in, yama! I agree with that assessment.

[WaltGrace1983]

I just wanted to give my own analysis on this question. I chose (E) from a slightly different line of reasoning than above.

Public should be encouraged to eat foods with lower butterfat
+
"Imitation" deters many people from purchasing it
→
We should allow manufacturers to call "imitation" butter "lite" butter instead

The argument is implying that, because we know that "imitation" butter actually has less cholesterol (therefore, potentially healthier) and because we should encourage people to eat healthier, then we should switch "imitation" butter to a more appealing name; i.e. "lite" butter.

The LSAT has a tendency to give us a plan and then ask us to weaken it. How do we weaken it typically? We show how that plan can backfire. I was thinking that maybe people would actually think "lite" butter was 100% healthy and would eat a lot of it to their own detriment. Either way, I was thinking that calling it "lite" would have disastrous consequences.

(A) We don't care why they are motivated to do what they do.

(B) This would actually really strengthen the argument! If they want to change the name to "lite" and actually make it healthier (well, at least more watered down) then that would be all the more reason to let them!

(C) So some people are not deterred from "imitation." So what? Does that mean we should call it "lite?" Maybe. However, this isn't really a strong answer choice both for its scope ("some individuals who are X feel a certain way...") but also for the fact that its fairly non consequential. It doesn't help me answer the question, "should they be allowed to call it 'lite' butter?"

(D) This is kind of a tempting answer. I was seeing a link between cholesterol and how the product is marketed. However, all this is saying is that there are many factors that lead people to high cholesterol. This answer is very meh. It would be much better if it more directly related to cholesterol for the people consuming the butter.

(E) This shows the plan backfiring. If we call it "lite" butter than maybe people will actually switch to "lite" butter even though they were eating a healthier alternative anyway! In another words, we accept the premises that we should encourage people to eat healthier but this would directly contradict that because it would perhaps cause people to eat unhealthier.

[dx369]

Exactly. It suggests that no harm is being done by not giving the "imitation butter" a lighter/liter sounding name. Therefore it undermines the argument by saying that there's another, probably better way to encourage the public to eat foods with lower butterfat content and lower cholesterol more generally - we don't need to find a nicer way to talk about butterfat substitutes - the public has already made an even better choice than the recommended change would encourage, and why would we want to do that? It would be silly.

I hope that helps. Please let us know if you have more questions or comments

Could you (or anyone else) explain why (D) is not correct?

I think if there are other factors than cholesterol that may contribute to health problems caused by butterfat, then the name should not be change to a more appealing one because we still do not want people to buy it.