PT 70, Sec 4, Q 12 Forum

[bp shinners]

(B) - "The amount of fresh water available to meet the needs of Earth's population varies significantly from region to region."

The language of (B) says exactly what you say it doesn't say.

So I think you've become so convinced that this question is wrong that you're not reading the wording of it correctly. Take a look at it again - you simply can't argue that it doesn't say it varies significantly/is unevenly distributed

.

Given by B conditions, that is about the needs of Earth's population (which includes animals and plants), the amount of fresh water available to meet the needs of Earth's HUMAN population still may not vary significantly from region to region.

Maybe, maybe not. But the simple fact that it varies calls into question whether everyone has access to water. It's immaterial if, in reality, there's a perfect distribution for humans.

[bp shinners]

(B) - "The amount of fresh water available to meet the needs of Earth's population varies significantly from region to region."

The language of (B) says exactly what you say it doesn't say.

So I think you've become so convinced that this question is wrong that you're not reading the wording of it correctly. Take a look at it again - you simply can't argue that it doesn't say it varies significantly/is unevenly distributed

.

Given by B conditions, that is about the needs of Earth's population (which includes animals and plants), the amount of fresh water available to meet the needs of Earth's HUMAN population still may not vary significantly from region to region.

But you're just being overly demanding of the right answer. All the other answers demonstrably suck. There may be an extremely slight term mismatch in B, but there are many more things wrong with the other answers.

There's not a mismatch - even if you extend the definition to include non-human water demand, it still weakens the argument.

[Jeffort]

Maybe a graphic of what (B) is talking about will help illuminate how it weakens the conclusion that population growth wherever on the planet will not lead to any shortages. Reality context sometimes helps with understanding what a question is talking about.



If the population growth trends the argument talks about occur in any of the yellow, orange or light blue regions, there is a reasonable chance it could lead to water shortages in those areas (for humans and/or animals, any living things in the area that need water).

Not only are you allowed to use real world common sense when analyzing and interpreting LR questions/arguments, you are EXPECTED to do so. The LSAT expects test takers to have common sense basic knowledge about basic real world things any average college student would have been taught/learned about through basic life experience and/or prior education, just not specialized topics that aren't in the realm of pedestrian common knowledge. The earth being really big and there being lots of arid land without readily available water is certainly one of those common sense things. I think it's fair to assume that most people that have made it to college understand that there are big deserts in the world where there isn't much water and that if you don't have water on hand where you are when you need it, that you have a water shortage at that time even if the shortage isn't permanent.