LSAT 112 – Section 3 – Question 10

LSAT 112 - Section 3 - Question 10

December 2001

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:15

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT112 S3 Q10
+LR
Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method
Causal Reasoning +CausR
Net Effect +NetEff
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
11%
157
B
6%
151
C
4%
154
D
5%
154
E
74%
161
129
144
158
 +Medium 144.548 +SubsectionEasier

Peter: Because the leaves of mildly drought-stressed plants are tougher in texture than the leaves of abundantly watered plants, insects prefer to feed on the leaves of abundantly watered plants. Therefore, to minimize crop damage, farmers should water crops only just enough to ensure that there is no substantial threat, from a lack of water, to either the growth or the yield of the crops.

Jennifer: Indeed. In fact, a mildly drought-stressed plant will divert a small amount of its resources from normal growth to the development of pesticidal toxins, but abundantly watered plants will not.

Summarize Argument
Jennifer agrees with Peter’s claim that farmers should water plants just enough to ensure no substantial threat from lack of water. As evidence, she points out that mildly drought-stressed plants will develop pesticidal toxins, but abundantly watered plants will not.

Describe Method of Reasoning
Jennifer supports the judgment reached by Peter. She does this by presenting independent evidence which supports his conclusion. The fact mildly drought-stressed plants produce pesticidal toxins supports the judgment that farmers should only water crops just enough.

A
It offers information that supports each of the claims that Peter makes in his argument.
Jennifer’s comment does not support each of Peter’s claims. Jennifer’s comment is offered as directy support for Peter’s conclusion.
B
It supports Peter’s argument by supplying a premise without which Peter’s conclusion cannot properly be drawn.
Jennifer’s comment is not a necessary assumption that Peter’s argument relies on. Jennifer’s comment supports Peter’s conclusion, but it does not have to be necessary.
C
It supports Peter’s argument by offering an explanation of all of Peter’s premises.
Jennifer’s comment does not explain any of Peter’s premises. Jennifer’s comment is independent from Peter’s premises.
D
It supports one of Peter’s premises although it undermines Peter’s conclusion.
Jennifer’s comment does not support one of Peter’s premises. Jennifer’s comment is offered as support for Peter’s conclusion.
E
It supports the conclusion of Peter’s argument by offering independent grounds for that conclusion.
The conclusion Jennifer supports is that farmers should only water crops just enough to ensure no substantial threat from lack of water. Jennifer’s comment is independent support for this conclusion.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 112 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply