kevincanspain wrote:Most fruit is sprayed with dangerous pesticides before it is harvested, and is dangerous until it is washed. Clearly, the cafeteria is selling pesticide-covered fruit,

If the fruit has been washed prior to reaching the cafeteria, is it dangerous for people to eat it?

@Kevin: I am not arguing but rather trying to learn here. I hope my intentions are not misinterpreted.

back to the question:
To find the assumption we must first find the conclusion.

Do we agree that the conclusion is: "Clearly, the cafeteria is selling pesticide-covered fruit"
"thereby, endangering its patrons" is not conclusion but a consequence based on the conclusion. There is no question of endangering if the conclusion were not the one above.

On what assumptions does the conclusion depend?
The author already knows that apples come in greasy condition when they arrive at the cafeteria. So, author is basing his conclusion that the fruit is pesticide-covered purely on his belief(assumption) that "pesticides leave a a greasy residue"

Had the author believed that pesticide leaves black spots on the fruit (just an example) would he conclude "Clearly, the cafeteria is selling pesticide-covered fruit" No.

Now, let's say the fruits are actually washed. When author sees them they are still greasy. What will author conclude now? He will again based on his belief that it is the pesticide that leaves a greasy residue, conclude that the cafeteria is selling pesticide-covered fruit.

Do we agree that the conclusion is: "Clearly, the cafeteria is selling pesticide-covered fruit" "thereby, endangering its patrons" is not conclusion but a consequence based on the conclusion. There is no question of endangering if the conclusion were not the one above.


My posts are sometimes a bit short: not to worry, we are discussing, not arguing

I believe that the conclusion of the argument is what you quoted above. Are we convinced that the cafeteria is selling pesticide-covered fruit, and if the cafeteria is doing so, is it endangering its patrons?


The author already knows that apples come in greasy condition when they arrive at the cafeteria. So, author is basing his conclusion that the fruit is pesticide-covered purely on his belief(assumption) that "pesticides leave a a greasy residue"

No, he is assuming that the fact that they arrive with this residue shows that they have never been washed and thus are covered with pesticide.

+1 B

thephoenix wrote:Cafeteria patron: The apples sold in this cafeteria are greasy. The cashier told me that the apples are in that condition when they are delivered to the cafeteria and that the cafeteria does not wash the apples it sells. Most fruit is sprayed with dangerous pesticides before it is harvested, and is dangerous until it is washed. Clearly, the cafeteria is selling pesticide-covered fruit, thereby endangering its patrons.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
(A) The apples that the cafeteria sells are not thoroughly washed after harvest but before reaching the cafeteria.
(B) Most pesticides that are sprayed on fruit before harvest leave a greasy residue on the fruit.
(C) Many of the cafeteria's patrons are unaware that the cafeteria does not wash the apples it sells.
(D) Only pesticides that leave a greasy residue on fruit can be washed off.
(E) Fruits other than apples also arrive at the cafeteria in a greasy condition
lsat

IMO: A

Conclusion: the cafeteria is selling pesticide-covered fruit, thereby endangering its patrons
Consider the premises required for the conclusion
Premise 1: Most fruit is sprayed with dangerous pesticides before it is harvested, and is dangerous until it is washed
Premise 2: apples are in that condition[greasy] when they are delivered to the cafeteria
Premise 3: cafeteria does not wash the apples it sells

Assumptions I can think of

1. All pesticides leave a greasy residue
2. Apples are not washed before they reach the cafeteria

B - States that most pesticides. So some pesticides won't leave a greasy residue.

kevincanspain wrote:Do we agree that the conclusion is: "Clearly, the cafeteria is selling pesticide-covered fruit" "thereby, endangering its patrons" is not conclusion but a consequence based on the conclusion. There is no question of endangering if the conclusion were not the one above.


My posts are sometimes a bit short: not to worry, we are discussing, not arguing

I believe that the conclusion of the argument is what you quoted above. Are we convinced that the cafeteria is selling pesticide-covered fruit, and if the cafeteria is doing so, is it endangering its patrons?


The author already knows that apples come in greasy condition when they arrive at the cafeteria. So, author is basing his conclusion that the fruit is pesticide-covered purely on his belief(assumption) that "pesticides leave a a greasy residue"

No, he is assuming that the fact that they arrive with this residue shows that they have never been washed and thus are covered with pesticide.

now I got it.THX a lot.

thephoenix wrote:Cafeteria patron: The apples sold in this cafeteria are greasy. The cashier told me that the apples are in that condition when they are delivered to the cafeteria and that the cafeteria does not wash the apples it sells. Most fruit is sprayed with dangerous pesticides before it is harvested, and is dangerous until it is washed. Clearly, the cafeteria is selling pesticide-covered fruit, thereby endangering its patrons.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
(A) The apples that the cafeteria sells are not thoroughly washed after harvest but before reaching the cafeteria.
(B) Most pesticides that are sprayed on fruit before harvest leave a greasy residue on the fruit.
(C) Many of the cafeteria's patrons are unaware that the cafeteria does not wash the apples it sells.
(D) Only pesticides that leave a greasy residue on fruit can be washed off.
(E) Fruits other than apples also arrive at the cafeteria in a greasy condition
lsat

I would go with A -

Series of events
1. Pesticide sprayed before Harvest
2. Harvesting
3. Apples arrive Greasy
4. Cafataria is selling pesticide fruit because its not washing

Conclusion is weakned if I say that after harvesting and before delivery to cafateria the apples are washed

B IMO is not correct because B says most pesticide leave a greasy residue. If we negate it pesticide do not leave a greasy residue. But what about washing we still need to do washing Greasy or not greasy.

IMO ...A...
whats the OA?

Using Negation technique +1 for B.

OA pls.