PT 56 Section 3 (LR) #5

cneu333
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 11:59 am

PT 56 Section 3 (LR) #5

Postby cneu333 » Thu Nov 22, 2012 2:28 am

I chose (B) as the answer, but was surprised to find that the correct answer was (D). I'm still not sure why (B) can't be the answer. Anyone willing to explain why (B) is wrong and (D) is correct?

User avatar
Cobretti
Posts: 2560
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:45 am

Re: PT 56 Section 3 (LR) #5

Postby Cobretti » Thu Nov 22, 2012 2:39 am

B is a premise that the conclusion depends on. Its stated as a standalone fact (ETA: its really a hypothetical, not a fact. Doesn't change its purpose in the argument though). D is the conclusion. Another hint here is that D attacks the researchers' argument that the gardener is attempting to disprove, while B makes no mention of it.

cneu333
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 11:59 am

Re: PT 56 Section 3 (LR) #5

Postby cneu333 » Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:00 am

Oh I got it now. Thanks! :)

TylerJonesMPLS
Posts: 74
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 11:20 pm

Re: PT 56 Section 3 (LR) #5

Postby TylerJonesMPLS » Sat Nov 24, 2012 7:55 pm

I have a different interpretation of the argument than mrizza.

I think the premises of the argument and its conclusion are these:

1) Researchers encourage us to allow certain kinds of weeds among garden vegetables because those weeds can repel caterpillars.

2) It is wise to avoid unnecessary use of insecticides.

3) [Implied Premise] The use of insecticides is unnecessary if another method is known to work at least as well.

4) But we do not know whether weeds that repell caterpillars may not a) deplete the soil, and b) attact other kinds of pests.

Conclusion:
The researchers advice is premature.

(B) is the same as Premise 4) b, so it cannot be the conclusion.

(D) is a different way of saying that the researches advice is premature, so it must be the conclusion.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: clueless801, Veil of Ignorance and 5 guests