to the top

#24- Agricultural economist: We can increase agricultural

LSAT Leader
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2016 2:05 pm
Points: 85

I think this is the wrong question for #24 of this test. I have Agriculture economist: We can increase agriculture production without reducing biodiversity, but only if etc. Can this question be explained. Thanks.
Stephanie Turaj
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
Posts: 230
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2016 11:02 am
Points: 291

Hi Adlindsey!

Yes, you are correct. The #24 that was posted here was actually supposed to be in LR Section III. I have moved that other post to the correct place. Good catch. :-D An instructor will respond to your question below.

Adam Tyson
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
Posts: 2443
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:01 pm
Points: 2,258

Boy did you pick a good one, adlindsey! I'm surprised we haven't had more discussion on this one already.

One way to approach this is to build a diagram, but by bit. Here are my abbreviations:

Increased Ag Production = IAP
Biodiversity = B
Conventional Ag = CA
Sustain Economic Growth = SEG

The first claim can be dealt with as a multi-conditional, like this:


+ :arrow: CA


The next claim makes SEG sufficient for IAP:

SEG :arrow: IAP

The conclusion then links SEG to CA, but leaves out any connection to B:

SEG :arrow: CA

To strengthen this link, I need to pull B back into the picture. To prove CA, I need both IAP AND B, but SEG only proves IAP. So, add in that SEG is sufficient for B, and we're there! Our prephrase, then, should be:

SEG :arrow: B

(Sustained economic growth is sufficient for biodiversity, or put another way, don't grow the economy without also maintaining biodiversity)

The best match for us is answer B. That is the only answer that ties SEG to B, which is what we need in order to get all the way through the chain to getting away from conventional agriculture.

A lot of work to get there, and the potential to get lost and confused along the way, but at the end of the journey there is only one contender that could possibly be our credited response, and so it is worth the extra effort.

I hope that clears it up for you!
Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT, GRE, ACT and SAT Instructor
Follow me on Twitter at
LSAT Master
Posts: 431
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 1:11 am
Points: 431

Can I ask for an explanation on how the statement 'we can increase agricultural production without reducing biodiversity, but only if we abandon conventional agriculture' is represented by a multi-conditional?

PS. This is a principle-strengthen question, but wouldn't the answer be the same for justify the conclusion/assumption question?