LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

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

 GLMDYP
  • Posts: 100
  • Joined: Aug 19, 2013
|
#12750
Hi!
For this question, I seriously consider (D) to be correct. They do argue whether the growth of population will endanger the wildlife, right?
Thanks!
 Lucas Moreau
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 216
  • Joined: Dec 13, 2012
|
#12820
Hello, GLMDYP,

D is, in fact, one of the points the two authors have in contention with each other. While Kim maintains that increased need for food will lead to increased amounts of land used for agriculture (thus eroding the forests), Hampton counters that there will be no land shortage, since technology will allow us to produce more food on the same amount of land (thus not endangering the forests).

B is better, since Hampton and Kim never dispute about what the problem is (increasing land requirements for an increasing population), just the degree to which it will be a problem in the future. They could easily be thought to agree that more efficient agriculture is beneficial - it directly helps to solve the problem they agree on.

Hope that helps,
Lucas Moreau
PowerScore
 avengingangel
  • Posts: 275
  • Joined: Jun 14, 2016
|
#36138
i agree that d is bad bc bc hampton does not recognize/mention anything abt the diminishing of forests. but i'm still struggling w b bc kim never says anything that would lead me to think she would agree with research + "innovative biotechnology " as something beneficial. when i read her statement it seemed she could agree w/ an initiative to stop or slow down the rapidly growing population. that seems to be her issue. she seems like f this trying to accommodate our insatiable appetite for potato chips at the expense of the environment, let's just have less humans
 AthenaDalton
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 296
  • Joined: May 02, 2017
|
#36229
Hi there,

Kim expresses concern about how the increased amount of land needed for food production (farmland) will threaten natural habitats. Based on this concern, it's reasonable to infer that Kate would support research into methods of growing greater quantities of food on small parcels of land. This would help meet the growing population's food needs without the need to replace wildlife habitat with farmland.

Hope this makes sense!

Athena Dalton
 mN2mmvf
  • Posts: 113
  • Joined: Jul 06, 2017
|
#37725
Why is (C) not correct? Each agree that population is increasing, and if they each agree that more food needs to be produced on less land, why is that not also agreement that the land not used for agriculture needs to be protected and optimized for density?

I'm not really comfortable with any answer, because Kim makes no recommendations anywhere to suggest what "needs" to happen or what would be "beneficial." But if (B) is correct, it seems like (C) could be too.
 Francis O'Rourke
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 471
  • Joined: Mar 10, 2017
|
#37767
Answer choice (C) brings in outside information. Neither Kim nor Hampton propose increasing urban population density. Although this may be a good idea, it is not given anywhere in the stimulus.

Kim does mention urban land area, but she does not claim or suggest that we need to restrict it. Hampton discusses technological change, not urban land management.

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

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