LR Drill Set 7, Question 8
Decreasing the populations of certain harmful insects in(60 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(15 more words not shown)
- AMost of the(13 more words not shown)
- BIf insect populations(21 more words not shown)
- CThe population of(17 more words not shown)
- DPollination of fruit(24 more words not shown)
- EThe populations of(21 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Killing the pests would help. Would it be enough to produce more fruit soon?
The pesticide is effective against the major pests and safe for birds and other animals. Let's keep those facts. They give us a reason to consider the plan, but they don't establish the whole forecast about fruit production.
My first concern is timing. What if the pesticide takes months to do its work? A useful treatment might still fail to produce an increase soon afterward.
I'd also ask what else could interfere. A drought, for example, could leave the trees without the water they need even while pest numbers fall. And changing an insect population might have other effects on the ecosystem. These are possible complications, not additional facts about Arboria.
What we’re looking for
For the weakener, look for a reason this plan might fail to deliver the predicted near-term increase. We don't have to deny that the pesticide kills pests. A fact showing another obstacle or an offsetting cost could do the job.
Working the answers
- A
The conclusion is conditional on systematic use being adopted. Growers' refusal could make adoption unlikely, but it doesn't tell us what fruit production would do if the plan were adopted. We need to assess the predicted result of use, not simply whether people want to try it.
- B
Losing insect-eating birds could matter, because they help control insects. So this isn't irrelevant. But it doesn't tell us that their departure would offset CC25's direct pest reduction soon enough to prevent the predicted increase. The pesticide might control the pests despite losing that help. D identifies a more direct threat to a requirement of fruit production.
- C
Some pest populations could remain unchanged while reducing other major pests still helped the fruit trees. The argument doesn't need the pesticide to eliminate every kind of pest. C doesn't tell us the unchanged populations are enough to prevent the expected increase.
- DCorrect
The insects needed for pollination are highly susceptible to the pesticide. Now the plan threatens a necessary part of producing fruit while removing one obstacle to it. Killing pests won't guarantee more fruit if the treatment also damages the trees' ability to be pollinated.
This takes a different route from the timing prediction: an unwanted side effect could offset the benefit. We don't have to infer that every pollinating insect dies or that fruit production falls to zero. The threat to those essential insects is enough to make the promised increase less convincing.
- E
Resistance could eventually let pest populations recover, but the conclusion predicts an increase soon after use begins. A later rebound is compatible with an early improvement. The answer doesn't establish when resistance would emerge or that it would defeat the near-term benefit. D directly questions whether the treatment can improve fruit production in the first place.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.