LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 Administrator
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 8919
  • Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
#98398
Complete Question Explanation

Main Point, Fill in the Blank. The correct answer choice is (E).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice.

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!
 roppo@ualberta.ca
  • Posts: 13
  • Joined: Jan 07, 2023
|
#98755
Has there been an update on this answer?

Thank you!
User avatar
 Jeff Wren
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 385
  • Joined: Oct 19, 2022
|
#98775
Hi Roppo,

This question is a Main Point (Fill in the Blank) question.

The correct answer is the statement that most logically follows from the premises that have been given without taking the argument in a completely new direction.

The premises state that certain pesticides give an immediate short term gain in crop yield, but that these gains diminish over the long term.

We're looking for an answer that follows from this idea without adding in unreasonable assumptions.

Answer A is too extreme. We don't know that using pesticides is uneconomic, only that the benefits diminish over time.

Answer B is wrong because damage to the environment was never discussed in this argument.

Answer C is also too extreme. We don't know that using pesticides will make pest problems unmanageable, only that the benefits diminish over time.

Answer D is wrong because the idea that the pesticides are not being used according to the instructions was never discussed in this argument and there is no reason to assume that the instructions were not being followed.

Answer E is correct because it follows most logically from the premises.

Even though Answer E discusses financial returns, which were not specifically discussed in the premises, it makes logical sense that (all other things being equal) the larger a yield of crops, the more money a farmer can make. Presumably, the exact reason to use the pesticides and get a larger yield of crops is to make more money.

Given this direct correlation between crop yield and financial returns, if the benefit of pesticides diminishes over time, then the extra crop yields will diminish over time, and also the related financial returns.
User avatar
 lxokiki
  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: Mar 24, 2023
|
#100649
Jeff Wren wrote: Mon Jan 09, 2023 2:17 pm Hi Roppo,

This question is a Main Point (Fill in the Blank) question.

The correct answer is the statement that most logically follows from the premises that have been given without taking the argument in a completely new direction.

The premises state that certain pesticides give an immediate short term gain in crop yield, but that these gains diminish over the long term.

We're looking for an answer that follows from this idea without adding in unreasonable assumptions.

Answer A is too extreme. We don't know that using pesticides is uneconomic, only that the benefits diminish over time.
Answer B is wrong because damage to the environment was never discussed in this argument.

Answer C is also too extreme. We don't know that using pesticides will make pest problems unmanageable, only that the benefits diminish over time.

Answer D is wrong because the idea that the pesticides are not being used according to the instructions was never discussed in this argument and there is no reason to assume that the instructions were not being followed.

Answer E is correct because it follows most logically from the premises.

Even though Answer E discusses financial returns, which were not specifically discussed in the premises, it makes logical sense that (all other things being equal) the larger a yield of crops, the more money a farmer can make. Presumably, the exact reason to use the pesticides and get a larger yield of crops is to make more money.

Given this direct correlation between crop yield and financial returns, if the benefit of pesticides diminishes over time, then the extra crop yields will diminish over time, and also the related financial returns.
In option A, I think using pesticides will produce more, so the benefits will be more. Is the reduction in economic benefits due to some being too expensive?
 Robert Carroll
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1787
  • Joined: Dec 06, 2013
|
#100651
lxokiki,

Answer choice (A) is incorrect. You're right that using pesticides will eventually increase crop yields. That will increase financial returns at first. Ultimately those returns won't be as large in the future. There is no way to know whether any of this is economic because we don't know the relative costs and benefits.

Robert Carroll
User avatar
 ihenson
  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: Jul 02, 2023
|
#102257
Hello, I'm hoping that someone could clear this up for me in the explanation. I am having trouble understanding why it's E versus B.

In the provided explanation it says:

"Answer B is wrong because damage to the environment was never discussed in this argument."

Which is also true about financial gains, and I know the explanation mentions this and says:
"Even though Answer E discusses financial returns, which were not specifically discussed in the premises, it makes logical sense that (all other things being equal) the larger a yield of crops, the more money a farmer can make. Presumably, the exact reason to use the pesticides and get a larger yield of crops is to make more money."

Couldn't this also be argued that although damage to the environment wasn't "specifically discussed in the premise, it makes logical sense that" long term use of something that "gradually depresses crop yield" is damaging to the environment?

Are we always supposed to assume that people in these passages are doing things for financial gain because the LSAT is created in a capitalist system? Not trying to be cheeky, I'm legitimately wondering, because I know part of the strategy is to poke holes, and I feel like you could also argue that these farmers are growing crops for a homestead or for community use where its beneficial to have a higher yield of crops, but they also aren't selling any.
 Luke Haqq
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 722
  • Joined: Apr 26, 2012
|
#102293
Hi ihenson!

You comment,

Couldn't this also be argued that although damage to the environment wasn't "specifically discussed in the premise, it makes logical sense that" long term use of something that "gradually depresses crop yield" is damaging to the environment?

Are we always supposed to assume that people in these passages are doing things for financial gain because the LSAT is created in a capitalist system?
There'd need to be more information in the stimulus to conclude that the environment would be damaged. All we're told is that there are short-term gains in crop yields, but ones that result in long-term depression of yields. It's possible that farmers will just accept the result of lower long-term yields--there's nothing to indicate that they will engage in overly intensive practices or otherwise react in some way that harms the environment.
User avatar
 ihenson
  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: Jul 02, 2023
|
#102331
Luke Haqq wrote: Wed Jul 05, 2023 7:17 pm Hi ihenson!

You comment,

Couldn't this also be argued that although damage to the environment wasn't "specifically discussed in the premise, it makes logical sense that" long term use of something that "gradually depresses crop yield" is damaging to the environment?

Are we always supposed to assume that people in these passages are doing things for financial gain because the LSAT is created in a capitalist system?
There'd need to be more information in the stimulus to conclude that the environment would be damaged. All we're told is that there are short-term gains in crop yields, but ones that result in long-term depression of yields. It's possible that farmers will just accept the result of lower long-term yields--there's nothing to indicate that they will engage in overly intensive practices or otherwise react in some way that harms the environment.
Hi Luke,

Thank you for answering!

I think I am still a little confused as to why this answer requires more needed information than E because both answers require you to infer information that isn't stated in the prompt.

When you say "It's possible that farmers will just accept the result of lower long-term yields--there's nothing to indicate that they will engage in overly intensive practices or otherwise react in some way that harms the environment", my assumption wasn't that the farmers were going to do something in addition that would damage the environment, but that since using the pesticides causes a depression in crop yield then you could assume that pesticides affect the crops likely in a damaging way since they're growing less.

I guess I'm struggling because the assumption I just referenced seems like the same type of leap as saying that financial returns will diminish. Couldn't it also be possible that lower crop yields could make them more rare, and then they could charge more for less inventory which means they'll break even?

Overall, I'm finding it hard to know when it's okay to assume and when it's not.
 Rachael Wilkenfeld
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1358
  • Joined: Dec 15, 2011
|
#102344
Hi ihenson,

We have no reason to think that it would harm the environment at all. The only depression of yield is from the elevated level initially seen by using the pesticide. We don't know that it ever goes below the level that it was initially, or otherwise hurts the environment. However, a lower yield than the initial results would indicate a lower financial return for later results.

I like putting numbers in to help me understand questions sometimes. It makes things more concrete. Here's what it would look like here:

Original yield: 100 crops
First year: 175 crops
Later years 150 crops

There's still an increase overall, but it's a decrease from the first year of use. The stimulus does not state that it ever goes under the original 100 level. It does say that it is worse than the initial return.

Hope that helps!

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.