Sufficient AssumptionDiff: Hardest
Logic Breakdown
Passage Summary: If a fruit is sick, it's rotten. We checked these fruits and they aren't sick. So, they must be safe to eat.
Conclusion: Any fruit that has been inspected is safe for consumption.
Reasoning: Infected fruit is always rotten, and none of the inspected fruit is infected.
Analysis: We have a classic formal logic gap here. We know inspected fruit is 'not infected,' and we know 'infected' leads to 'rotten,' but we don't know if 'not rotten' (or 'not infected') automatically means 'safe to eat.' To guarantee the conclusion, we need a bridge that says if a fruit isn't rotten, it is definitely safe to eat.
Conclusion: Any fruit that has been inspected is safe for consumption.
Reasoning: Infected fruit is always rotten, and none of the inspected fruit is infected.
Analysis: We have a classic formal logic gap here. We know inspected fruit is 'not infected,' and we know 'infected' leads to 'rotten,' but we don't know if 'not rotten' (or 'not infected') automatically means 'safe to eat.' To guarantee the conclusion, we need a bridge that says if a fruit isn't rotten, it is definitely safe to eat.
Passage Stimulus
Passage Redacted
Unlock Full Passage7.The conclusion of the argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?
Correct Answer
E
Correct. If every uninfected fruit is safe (¬Infected → Safe), then given Inspected → ¬Infected, we get Inspected → Safe as required.
Upgrade Your Prep
Ready to go beyond free explanations?
LSAT Perfection is the #1 modern LSAT prep platform, trusted by thousands of students for comprehensive test strategies, advanced drilling, and full analytics on every PrepTest.
Detailed explanations for 59 PrepTests
Advanced drillset builder
Personalized analytics
Built-in Wrong Answer Journal