- Tue Apr 27, 2021 4:40 pm
#86678
It looks to me like two things may be happening that are getting in your way, crispycrispr. First, you are focusing too much on the topic of the stimulus and allowing yourself to get wrapped up in the details. It shouldn't matter if the question is about astronomy, or agriculture, or music, or philosophy. Focus on the structure of the argument (which is why Kelsey recommended you look at Method and Flaw questions). See what's wrong with the structure. Then, prephrase an answer that attacks that flaw in the structure. Take this argument, for example, which is entirely gibbereish:
"Blumpers routinely grow more squampish whenever merklets dampen the puffs. Thus, we should do all we can to keep the puffs dry, rather than allowing the merklets to dampen them."
The conclusion is the last sentence. The author wants to prove that we should keep the puffs dry. Why? Because damp puffs may contribute to squampish blumpers.
Now, attack this argument. We need an answer that suggests that perhaps we should NOT try to keep the puffs dry. Any answer that suggests keeping them dry may not be a good idea would do. Maybe there are advantages to damp puffs that outweigh the possible harms of squampish blumpers? Maybe squampish blumpers are actually a good thing, so we should leave the puffs alone? Maybe dry puffs cause even bigger problems than damp ones? ANY disadvantage to doing what the author said we should do, or any advantage in not doing it, would raise doubts about the conclusion. We don't need to know anything about what these things are or how they related to each other. We just need to focus on the conclusion and the structure of the argument that led to it, and then respond with some contrary evidence. We just need to raise some doubt.
The second problem I see is tougher to deal with, and it has to do with your applying the answers to the facts in the stimulus. If the family is growing peach or apricot trees on their farm, they are the ones selling the fruit, not buying it! Higher selling prices are to their advantage, and have nothing to do with the cost of the trees or the cost to plant and grow them. In that argument, the author is arguing that peach trees make more sense, so your job is to find a problem with peach trees or an advantage of apricot trees. If peach production is down, that might be an advantage for planting peach trees, since it suggests that there may be more demand due to a shrinking supply. Without knowing more about why production is down, though, we cannot say for sure if this is an advantage or a disadvantage, so we can't say that it weakens or strengthens the argument, and the fact that we don't know makes that a bad answer. Keep your prephrase simple and directed against the conclusion. Look for something that is contrary to the conclusion, that raises doubts about it. And be sure to avoid too much speculation, as the correct answer should clearly weaken the argument without any help from us!
Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT, GRE, ACT and SAT Instructor
Follow me on Twitter at
https://twitter.com/LSATadam