PrepTest 112, Section 3, Question 10
Peter: Because the leaves of mildly drought-stressed plants(88 more words not shown)
Jennifer's comment is related to(9 more words not shown)
- AIt offers information(12 more words not shown)
- BIt supports Peter's(13 more words not shown)
- CIt supports Peter's(10 more words not shown)
- DIt supports one(8 more words not shown)
- EIt supports the(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
I can picture why an insect might prefer a softer leaf to a tougher one. Think of tender lettuce beside a dried, tough leaf. That gives me a way to follow Peter's proposed benefit of keeping plants mildly short of water.
But don't the plants need water too? Peter has already included a safeguard: they must receive enough that the lack of water poses no substantial threat to growth or yield. So we shouldn't object as if he proposed letting the crops die.
I'd still want to ask about quality. Could the produce taste worse, even if the amount harvested stayed acceptable?
Jennifer adds that mildly stressed plants produce pesticidal toxins. That raises another question for me about the produce people will buy, but we haven't been told that those substances make it taste bad or harm people. Jennifer presents them as an additional defense against pests.
What we’re looking for
The question asks how her comment relates to Peter's argument. She agrees with his recommendation and gives another reason for it: he points to tougher texture, while she points to pesticidal substances. Our own questions about quality don't turn her supportive comment into an objection.
Working the answers
- A
Jennifer supports the recommendation, but not each claim Peter makes. She doesn't supply evidence that the leaves are tougher or explain the insects' preference for the texture of abundantly watered plants. She introduces a different feature of mild drought stress.
- B
An extra reason needn't be a required reason. Even if the plants produced no pesticidal toxins, Peter could still appeal to tough leaves deterring insects. Jennifer strengthens his recommendation by adding support; she doesn't identify something without which his existing reason would disappear.
- C
Her comment doesn't explain all of Peter's premises. We aren't told the toxins cause the tougher texture or explain the stated preference about which leaves insects feed on. She offers another way the proposed watering practice could protect crops, rather than explaining the facts Peter already used.
- D
Jennifer says 'Indeed' and gives a further benefit of the same practice. She doesn't argue that farmers should abandon Peter's recommendation. The small diversion of resources might make us ask further questions, but she presents the production of pesticidal toxins as support for limiting water, not as a reason to reject that approach.
- ECorrect
Both favor the same watering recommendation for different reasons. Peter's reason is the tougher texture and the resulting insect preference. Jennifer's reason is the pesticidal toxins produced by mildly drought-stressed plants. Her reason doesn't depend on proving his texture claim.
Those are independent grounds for the same conclusion. Calling them independent doesn't mean they concern unrelated topics; it means Jennifer adds another basis for the recommendation instead of merely repeating or explaining Peter's basis.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.