LR Help, Text Included PT14-S3-Q12

ag912
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 6:10 pm

LR Help, Text Included PT14-S3-Q12

Postby ag912 » Fri Sep 02, 2011 5:41 pm

Proponents of organic farming claim that using chemical fertilizers and pesticides in farming is harmful to local wildlife. To produce the same amount of food, however, more land must be under cultivation when organic farming techniques are used than when chemicals are used. Therefore, organic farming leaves less land available as habitat for local wildlife.

Which one of the following is an assumption o n which the argument depends?

My Choice:
D.) The same crops are grown on organic farms as on farms where chemicals are used

Correct answer:
E.) Land cultivated by organic farming methods no longer constitutes a habitat for wildlife

Questions: I recognized both answers as possibly correct but I dont understand why E is more correct than D. If the argument doesn't assume that the same crops are grown, then it could hypothetically be said that crops with double the yield per sq foot were used. This could entail that organic farming would not leave less land available.

User avatar
EarlCat
Posts: 610
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:04 pm

Re: LR Help, Text Included PT14-S3-Q12

Postby EarlCat » Fri Sep 02, 2011 6:36 pm

ag912 wrote:My Choice:
D.) The same crops are grown on organic farms as on farms where chemicals are used

Questions: I recognized both answers as possibly correct but I dont understand why E is more correct than D. If the argument doesn't assume that the same crops are grown, then it could hypothetically be said that crops with double the yield per sq foot were used.


Don't fight the premise. It tells you straight up, "To produce the same amount of food...more land must be under cultivation when organic farming techniques are used."

User avatar
EarlCat
Posts: 610
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:04 pm

Re: LR Help, Text Included PT14-S3-Q12

Postby EarlCat » Fri Sep 02, 2011 6:36 pm

Also don't post the whole question. LSAC will send their ninjas after you.

barneytrouble
Posts: 241
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 11:43 pm

Re: LR Help, Text Included PT14-S3-Q12

Postby barneytrouble » Fri Sep 02, 2011 8:56 pm

ag912 wrote:Proponents of organic farming claim that using chemical fertilizers and pesticides in farming is harmful to local wildlife. To produce the same amount of food, however, more land must be under cultivation when organic farming techniques are used than when chemicals are used. Therefore, organic farming leaves less land available as habitat for local wildlife.

Which one of the following is an assumption o n which the argument depends?

My Choice:
D.) The same crops are grown on organic farms as on farms where chemicals are used

Correct answer:
E.) Land cultivated by organic farming methods no longer constitutes a habitat for wildlife

Questions: I recognized both answers as possibly correct but I dont understand why E is more correct than D. If the argument doesn't assume that the same crops are grown, then it could hypothetically be said that crops with double the yield per sq foot were used. This could entail that organic farming would not leave less land available.


Make them both false:

D. "Different crops are grown on organic farms as on farms where chemicals are used"

E. "Land cultivated by organic farming methods still constitutes a habitat for wildlife"

If E-negated is true, the whole argument goes out the window. You want to focus on the conclusion "organic farming leaves less land available as habitat for wildlife" - with E-negated being true here, that conclusion is obviously false and E is clearly an assumption on which the argument depends.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bcapace, cherrygalore, connordalto, dontsaywhatyoumean, LewD33, mrgstephe and 22 guests