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.