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: 8917
  • Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
#36683
Complete Question Explanation

Weaken—CE. The correct answer choice is (B)

Many test takers enjoy Weaken questions because these questions necessitate the use of skills often
required in real-world situations. Test takers are quite accustomed to finding inconsistencies, loopholes,
flaws, and shortcomings in other people’s arguments and these abilities can prove to be quite useful
on the LSAT. Such test takers may think of several different ways to attack this argument. Remember,
however, that the test makers will almost never attack the premises in a Weaken question. It is very
unlikely that the correct answer choice will say, “Today’s farmers actually plant many different strains
of a given crop,” or, “No known disease exists which would strike only a few strains of crops.” Rather
than questioning the author’s evidence, the correct answer will attack the author’s use of that evidence in
drawing a conclusion.

Here, the author uses the evidence to make two claims. First, a disease that strikes only a few strains of
crops would have had only minor impact on the food supply in the past. Second, such a disease would
devastate the food supply today. It should be obvious that the latter claim is the author’s main argument.
So the primary objective is to find an answer choice which proves that this disease would not devastate
the food supply.

Answer choice (A): This statement would only contradict the author’s secondary claim (and not the
conclusion) if the crop diseases mentioned here struck only a few strains of crops. It is possible that the
devastating crop diseases mentioned in answer choice (A) are different than the disease(s) that strikes
only a few strains of crops mentioned in the stimulus. Hence, this answer choice does not attack the
author’s conclusion.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. This answer choice requires a number of
assumptions. First, “quickly” must mean that the replacement crops can be used before the food supply
becomes devastated, otherwise the conclusion could still be correct. Also, some of the strains among the
many strains stored in the seed banks must not be affected by the disease. Finally, replacing the affected
crops must not itself be devastating to the food supply. If all these things are true, then the author’s
argument would be weakened. While not the most clear Weaken answer choice on the test, this is the
strongest answer choice available.

Answer choice (C): If this is true, it probably strengthens the author’s argument by adding evidence that
popular seed strains used today are less resistant than some of the less popular strains used previously.

Answer choice (D): The increased variety of human diets, and a heavy reliance on rice and wheat, does
not suggest that the food supply would not be devastated by a crop disease. In fact, an argument could
be made that this choice potentially strengthens the conclusion, as a heavy reliance on specific crops
could theoretically result in the devastation of the food supply if those specific crops (rice and wheat
in this example) were wiped out by disease. Because there is nothing to suggest that wheat and rice are
particularly invulnerable to disease, or that they would likely not be devastated in the event of a disease
outbreak, this answer choice certainly does not weaken the conclusion.

Answer choice (E): While it may be comforting to know that today’s crops are more pest- and weedresistant
than they once were, this knowledge does not weaken the author’s argument. Remember, the
author is only concerned with the devastating impact of disease upon today’s overly homogenous crop
strains, and crops’ resistance to other threats does nothing to offset their susceptibility to disease.

Thus, answer choice (B) is the only remaining Contender. It may not be perfect, but it is the only answer
choice which could plausibly weaken the author’s claim.
 eober
  • Posts: 107
  • Joined: Jul 24, 2014
|
#16110
Hi,

I am confused how B weakens the argument because it does not say that "affected crops can quickly be replaced from seed banks" now but it was not possible to do so a few generations ago

Any clarification is appreciated!
 Lucas Moreau
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 216
  • Joined: Dec 13, 2012
|
#16162
Hello, eober,

You are correct, but not quite for the reason you think you are. :ras:

It's true that things are not different than they were a few generations ago. The fact of the seed banks containing "many strains" of crops serves to reduce the problem of lack of diversity among our crops. This means that this lack of diversity would not lead to the devastating effect that the conclusion prophesies.

Hope that helps,
Lucas Moreau
 jcough346
  • Posts: 35
  • Joined: Aug 05, 2016
|
#30157
Can you go through the stimulus and the answer choices please? I eliminated B,C, and D, was between A and E and ultimately chose E...Not sure what happened here.
Thanks
James
 Adam Tyson
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 5153
  • Joined: Apr 14, 2011
|
#30171
Hey James, happy to help here, but I will echo what Dave said elsewhere, and that's to ask you to start by telling us about your process. What made you narrow down the choices to those two answers? What did you feel made one answer better or worse than the other? What did you decide you were looking for after reading the stimulus and the stem and then prephrasing your answer? We find that our students get more out of us, and out of themselves, by sharing their thought process and analysis so that we can all delve into that together.

Get back to us with that, and we will happily discuss it with you. Until then, welcome to the forum, happy to see you here!
 ashutosh_73
  • Posts: 14
  • Joined: Aug 05, 2023
|
#105247
Many test takers enjoy Weaken questions because these questions necessitate the use of skills often
required in real-world situations. Test takers are quite accustomed to finding inconsistencies, loopholes,
flaws, and shortcomings in other people’s arguments and these abilities can prove to be quite useful
on the LSAT.
''Many'' :lol: So amusing!
Honest admission: It really got me thinking that why my accuracy in weaken/logical flaw questions is better than in strengthen questions :oops: :oops:

Anyways, i think this is a very bad bad question. While reviewing this one, i found (A) and (B) equally bad.

For (A) strike one was, in someway, it is opposite to whatever has been mentioned in the premise.
Strike 2: are the diseases mentioned in (A) and stimulus are same? Because stimulus uses the modifier ''that strikes'' AND ''that would have had only minor impact'' to define disease, i don't think that two diseases are same.

For (B), my thinking was: Yes ''Affected crops can quickly be replaced'' but it doesn't say anything whether food supply has been disrupted. What if ''Affected crops take an year to grow, but they got affected during the harvesting season''?
I think (B) comes with a lot of assumptions.
User avatar
 Chandler H
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 54
  • Joined: Feb 09, 2024
|
#105255
Hi ashutosh,

This is a tough one, but I'll try to address your points, and hopefully you like this question a little bit more! Here's our argument:

Premise 1: Today's farmers plant only a few different strains of a given crop
Premise 2: Crops lack the diversity that they had in the past
Conclusion: A disease that strikes only a few strains of crops wouldn't have been that devastating in the past, but would devastate today's food supply

Answer choice (A) is definitely flawed. (A) tells us that, in the past, crop diseases would often devastate food supplies. However, this does not weaken the argument, because the fact that some diseases devastated food supplies in the past doesn't necessarily mean that the disease referred to by the author would have been devastating as well. You're correct that we should not assume that the diseases mentioned in (A) and the diseases the author talks about in the stimulus are the same. Since we can't make this assumption, (A) becomes irrelevant—it doesn't weaken the stimulus at all.

With answer choice (B), the key thing to remember is that we're searching for the answer choice which will most weaken the argument. (B) isn't perfect, but it weakens the stimulus somewhat. The word "quickly" implies that the food supply will not be devastated, even if perhaps it is affected. When we review the other four answer choices, we realize that (B) "most weakens" the argument, even if it's not a great weakener! :ras:

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

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