LR Drill Set 2, Question 3
Dairy farmers should always try to maximize feed(41 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(7 more words not shown)
- ADairy farmers should(16 more words not shown)
- BIn the most(23 more words not shown)
- CDairy farmers should(16 more words not shown)
- DThe percentage of(21 more words not shown)
- EDairy farmers should(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
More milk sounds useful. But is more milk always what the farmer should pursue?
The argument gives us a reason extra feed can improve production: a smaller share of the cow's total energy goes to maintaining its body, leaving more energy available for milk. Let's accept that proposed benefit. It still doesn't automatically establish the recommendation to maximize feeding.
What if pushing production higher harms the cows or creates costs the farmer has good reason to avoid? That isn't a fact about these cows; it's a way to test the recommendation.
Similarly, working longer hours can increase output without making every possible increase in working hours a good idea. An outcome can increase while other priorities suffer.
What we’re looking for
For the required assumption, I'd look for the missing goal: farmers should try to increase milk production in their most productive cows. The argument uses more milk as its reason for the feeding recommendation. If increasing production isn't something they should pursue, that reason loses its force. We need a necessary commitment, not a complete account of how every bit of energy is used.
Working the answers
- A
The argument doesn't recommend maximizing the share of energy spent on bodily maintenance. Its explanation goes the other way: as feeding rises, that share falls and more energy is available for milk. A changes the objective from producing milk to maximizing a maintenance percentage.
- B
A fixed percentage is unnecessary. Suppose the fraction of available energy actually used for milk varies, while increased feeding still produces more milk. The argument's stated relationship could hold. It doesn't need a precise constant fraction to recommend feeding more for that benefit.
- C
The amount used for maintenance and the percentage used for maintenance are different. Neither is the goal the argument tells farmers to maximize. The case for more feed rests on increased milk production, not on a recommendation to maximize maintenance energy. C supplies the wrong objective.
- D
This compares the most productive cows with other cows. The argument instead discusses what happens when feeding increases in the cows selected for the recommendation. They could require a higher or lower maintenance percentage than other cows and still produce more milk when fed more. That between-group comparison is not required.
- ECorrect
The recommendation treats increased milk production in these cows as something farmers should seek. E states that missing commitment. It doesn't say milk is the only thing that matters or prove that maximizing feed is always wise. A required assumption needn't fix every objection; this one supplies the goal that the argument's stated benefit is meant to serve.
More Necessary Assumption questions
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 1, Question 4Necessary Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 10, Question 2Necessary Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 11, Question 7Necessary Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 12, Question 10Necessary Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 13, Question 11Necessary Assumption
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.