LSAT 152 – Section 1 – Question 21

LSAT 152 - Section 1 - Question 21

November 2018

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:28

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
PT152 S1 Q21
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
Link Assumption +LinkA
A
2%
156
B
48%
164
C
4%
151
D
31%
161
E
14%
157
152
163
174
 +Hardest 148.23 +SubsectionMedium

Farmer: Farming with artificial fertilizers, though more damaging to the environment than organic farming, allows more food to be grown on the same amount of land. If all farmers were to practice organic farming, they would be unable to produce enough food for Earth’s growing population. Hence, if enough food is to be produced, the currently popular practice of organic farming must not spread any further.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that if enough food is to be produced, the practice or organic farming cannot spread any further. This is based on the fact that if all farmers were to practice organic farming, they wouldn’t be able to produce enough food for Earth’s population.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The premise establishes that to make enough food, we can’t have “all farmers” doing organic farming. But the author mistakenly interprets that to mean we can’t have any increase in organic farming. The author overlooks the possibility that having an increase in organic farming can still allow us to feed Earth’s population, as long as that increase doesn’t extend to “all farmers.”

A
It takes for granted that farming with artificial fertilizers is only slightly more damaging to the environment than organic farming is.
The author acknowledges that artificial fertilizer-based farming is “more damaging” than organic farming. There’s no indication the author thinks this damage is only slight as opposed to significant.
B
It overlooks the possibility that even if the practice of organic farming continues to spread, many farmers will choose not to adopt it.
This possibility, if true, shows that it’s possible organic farming can spread without it extending to “all farmers.” And if it doesn’t extend to “all farmers,” then we have no reason to think we’d be in a position where it’s impossible to feed the world.
C
It fails to consider the possibility that, at some points in human history, enough food was produced to feed Earth’s population without the use of artificial fertilizers.
The premise establishes that in order to feed the world, we can’t have “all farmers” doing organic farming. What farming was like in the past and how much food such farming allowed has no bearing on what the premise says is currently required.
D
It overlooks the possibility that a consequence that would surely follow if all farmers adopted the practice of organic farming would still ensue even if not all of them did.
This isn’t a possibility overlooked by the author; it’s closer to something the author assumes. The author thinks that we’ll face inability to feed people if organic farming spreads even a little bit more. Since this possibility doesn’t hurt the argument, it’s not the flaw.
E
It takes for granted that damage to the environment due to the continued use of artificial fertilizers would not be detrimental to human health.
The author’s argument doesn’t assume anything about damage to human health. The issue is whether a further spread of organic farming would lead to inability to produce enough food. How fertilizers affect health doesn’t bear on this issue.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 152 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply