LSAT Explanation PT 31, S3, Q21: So-called "engineered foods," usually in powder

LSAT Question Stem

The argument depends on assuming which one of the following? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Necessary Assumption question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is C. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

First, let's analyze the argument in the passage. The passage discusses engineered foods, which are protein-based products supplemented with vitamins and minerals. The passage states that these foods stimulate the production of growth hormones, but this growth occurs in connective tissue rather than muscle mass, and therefore does not improve muscle strength. The conclusion of the argument is that athletes, who need to improve their muscular strength, should not consume engineered foods.

The structure of the argument is as follows:

1. Premise: Engineered foods stimulate the production of growth hormones.

2. Premise: These growth hormones produce growth in connective tissue, not muscle mass.

3. Premise: Growth in connective tissue does not improve muscle strength.

4. Conclusion: Athletes, who need to improve their muscular strength, should not consume engineered foods.

An "Evaluate" question for this argument could be: "Are there any other benefits for athletes from consuming engineered foods, aside from muscle strength improvement?"

Now, let's go through the answer choices. This is a Necessary Assumption question, so we need to find the assumption that the argument depends on.

a) An increase in muscle mass produces an increase in strength.

This answer choice is incorrect because it reverses the relationship between a premise and a subsidiary conclusion. The passage states that growth in connective tissue does not improve muscle strength, but it does not claim that an increase in muscle mass necessarily produces an increase in strength.

b) People who are not athletes require neither stronger connective tissue nor muscle strength.

This answer choice is out of scope since the argument's conclusion is about athletes, not non-athletes.

c) If an engineered food does not improve muscle strength, there is no other substantial advantage to athletes from consuming it.

This is the correct answer. The argument assumes that there are no other benefits for athletes from consuming engineered foods, aside from muscle strength improvement. If there were other substantial advantages, the conclusion that athletes should not consume engineered foods would be weakened.

d) Consuming engineered foods that provide nutrients that can be obtained more easily elsewhere is unhealthy.

This answer choice is out of scope since we don't know that the nutrients found in engineered foods can be found more easily somewhere else.

e) Growth of muscle mass enhances muscle strength only when accompanied by growth of connective tissue.

This answer choice is unnecessary and conflates terms from the stimulus. It stipulates the same relationship from answer choice (A) but then puts a requirement on it, which is not needed for the argument to hold.

In conclusion, the correct answer is C, as it is the necessary assumption that the argument depends on.