LSAT Discussion Forum

Hello PowerScore,

When I took this as a practice test I missed question 18. I was confused by answer C. While I understand that the correct answer is D, doesn't this claim not eventually support Malthus' original position that insufficient food will doom humanity? What should've been the "red-flag" for answer C?

Thanks,
Garrett

Garrett,

Malthus's argument was that population would increase more rapidly than food-producing capacity. This is so because we know the actual facts in the first sentence are contrary to Malthus's predictions, so he must have predicted the opposite. The fact that this will eventually change is what makes Malthus ultimately right, not the current situation, where Malthus is (so far!) wrong. So on its own, this observation cannot support Malthus's position.

Robert Carroll

I picked Choice C for this one and I went back to analyze it, I realized that I missed an important premise. The second time around I broke down like this:

Premise 1: Malthus is wrong re: production capacity has increased more rapidly than human population.

Premise 2: Yet -- agricultural advances lack bio-diversity.

Premise 3: lack of biodiversity will erode our current capacity in the future.
(This is what I missed b/c it was after the conclusion and it did seem important)

Conclusion: Malthus's prediction is nevertheless correct (insufficient food will doom humanity to .... famine)

Premise 3 is the reason that D is correct.

My original answer choice C is wrong because he doesn't the author does not support that current observation.

One of the things that I seem to be struggling with is timing. I'm taking the test on 9/24 and I feel like I know what I'm doing and feel confident about answering the questions, but then I miss questions like this because I missed or thought that a premise or fact was not important to the whole stimulus. I feel like if I break down every question like I did above, that I will really run out of time and will only end up answering 15 questions for the LR section. Any other suggestions? I know the obvious answer is slow down and make sure that I understand, but I don't feel like I have the time to slow down.

Remember the goal on this test - to get more correct answers. That doesn't always mean answering more questions - it means improving your accuracy. It's better to answer 15 questions and get them all right (and then guess on the next 10 and get, say, 2 right, for a total of 17) than it is to answer 25 and only get, say, 12 right.

As you practice, don't ever rush. Rushing never helps and usually hurts. Instead, focus on accuracy, and you should see your numbers come up. As you get better, and your confidence improves as you learn how to apply the strategies and techniques you have been taught, your speed will likely improve as a natural byproduct. You take care of getting the right answers, and the clock will take care of itself.

Good luck!

I see now how answer D is correct. I initially chose C. I am still not seeing why C is wrong.

The first sentence introduces a claim, that disagrees with Malthu's arguments. Then we learn through a counter-premise that the above claim causes lack of biodiversity. Conclusion: Malthus will eventually be correct because the counter-premise will cause the original claim to be incorrect.

I see how this means in D that it's a fact that changes, because it will. But why is C wrong? It seems like the claim then indeed does support Malthus position, because that fact actually means that he will be correct in the future.

We only know Malthus' argument here indirectly, heartofsunshine, but it goes something like this:

Premise: Human population is growing faster than our ability to produce food
Conclusion: We're doomed

Our author agrees that we are doomed, but denies Malthus' premise. The claim we are being asked about is the one that denies Malthus' premise. That's where answer C gets it wrong - the claim in question does not support Malthus, but contradicts him. It's true that he turns out to be right, and we are doomed, but for the wrong reason!

I think the ambiguity of "position" is what's bothering a lot of people, and me as well. Does "position" refer to his prediction, or to his prediction and his argument? It seems to me that (C) is correct if you take the former view, and wrong if you take the latter view.

Not sure how I was supposed to know that "position" referred to the argument and the prediction, given that the normal way to think about "position" is the final result/prediction, not the entire argument...for example, a politician's "position" on gay rights is normally construed to mean they're either pro- or anti-, but their "position," colloquially speaking, would not entail all of the underlying logic.

Answer C does not support either Malthus's premise or his conclusion, German.Steel. Rather, the author claims that Malthus' conclusion is ultimately correct despite that evidence, not because of it. It's not the increase in food production that is causing the problem, but the manner in which that increase is being accomplished.

As with everything in Logical Reasoning (and most things in RC and LG as well), the analysis should begin with your prephrase, which is what we call your prediction for the correct answer. Don't look to the answers hoping that one will be good, but start by looking to the argument and question stem and answering it for yourself first. What would you say if this was a short answer test rather than multiple choice? Probably something like "it's a claim used to discredit Malthus' premise even though the argument ultimately agrees with his conclusion." Or perhaps "it's something that Malthus got wrong, but which will become correct eventually, albeit for a different reason."

Answer C wouldn't be a good match for prephrases like those, because the claim doesn't support Malthus in any way. It's attacking his argument! Meanwhile, answer D looks pretty great. Is it a general fact? Yup. Does the author think it's going to change? Also yup. Winner!

Hi,

In option D, what is meant by "will eventually change"?

1) Does this mean that the statement referred in the question stem will eventually change? Or
2) Does this mean that the Malthus's argument will eventually change? If yes, How is this interpreted?

Many thanks for your feedback on my queries!

The former rather than the latter, smtq123. "It" refers to the fact in the question stem, that "human food-producing capacity has increased more rapidly than human population." The author is arguing that while that has been true so far, at some point it will change as our ability to produce food diminishes due to a lack of biodiversity.