- Tue Aug 15, 2017 1:45 am
That's a good question, lsat2016, and it could be easy to view it that way. If so, then all the answers are losers!
The way to see that is not an intermediate (aka subordinate aka subsidiary) conclusion is to recognize that the author isn't actually trying to PROVE that farmers have to use greater and greater amounts. It's not "insects increase resistance, therefore farmers need to use more and more". Rather, the whole sentence is taken together as a single premise - a causal phenomenon and its effect all rolled into one claim. This difference is subtle, but it hinges on the author's intent in making the claim. Does he want us to believe the claim based on some other evidence he provided, or does he want us to believe it just because he said so? In this case it's the latter - he drops the entire claim about the cause (resistance) and effect (use more) as one big package, all tied together, like a known fact that should not be questioned. That's the hallmark of a premise - you are supposed to just swallow it whole, and then see if the conclusion follows from it or not.
This is a fairly rare case in that regard, and it makes for a rather unusual Method-AP question. You clearly aren't alone in having a hard time seeing the fine distinction between a true intermediate conclusion and this claim about an effect! When you are faced with what looks like five loser answers, step back and consider which one you hate the least. That's the best answer of the bunch, and that's the one you have to go with. If we think we are looking for an intermediate conclusion, this one is ALMOST perfect, and the others are all horrible, so it's the best. That way, even with the wrong analysis we can still get to the right answer (the one that gets you credit from LSAC).
I hope that helped!
Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT, GRE, ACT and SAT Instructor
Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/LSATadam