Logic Breakdown

Passage Summary: Because high fat is bad for you, a brownie with no fat is automatically better for your health than a cookie that has a lot of fat.

Conclusion: Fat-free brownies are a healthier choice than high-fat cookies.

Reasoning: High-fat foods are generally unhealthy, and since the brownies lack fat while the cookies are high in it, the brownies must be the healthier option.

Analysis: This argument suffers from a classic 'single-variable' flaw. It assumes that because one unhealthy attribute (fat) is absent, the product is overall 'healthier,' ignoring other factors like sugar, calories, or artificial additives. I'll bet these 'healthy' brownies are loaded with sugar to make up for the missing fat. To parallel this, look for an answer that compares two things based on one negative trait and concludes one is better overall simply because it lacks that specific trait.

Passage Stimulus

Passage Redacted

Unlock Full Passage

22.

Which one of the following exhibits flawed reasoning most similar to the flawed reasoning exhibited by the argument above?

Correct Answer
B
Like the stimulus, it uses a general tendency (overcooking generally reduces vitamins) and then draws a comparative conclusion between two different items (carrots vs peas) based solely on that factor, ignoring other relevant differences. It mirrors the same one-factor-overgeneralization.
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
Explore Perfection Plus for full LSAT prep