PrepTest 112, Section 3, Question 11
Peter: Because the leaves of mildly drought-stressed plants(88 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(6 more words not shown)
- AThe leaves of(19 more words not shown)
- BIn industrialized nations(17 more words not shown)
- CInsect damage presents(11 more words not shown)
- DFarmers are not(26 more words not shown)
- EMexican bean beetles(26 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Keeping insects away is useful, but farmers still need a crop people want to buy.
Picture choosing between a juicy apple and a dry, unappealing one. That is the concern the watering recommendation raises for me: could making plants less attractive to insects also reduce the quality consumers want? Peter does specify enough water to avoid a substantial threat to growth or yield. We should honor that qualification instead of imagining the farmer simply lets the crop die. Still, I'd want to understand any remaining effect on quality.
Jennifer's point about pesticidal toxins offers another potential benefit against insects. It also makes me wonder about taste. We haven't been told the substances make the food unpleasant or harmful to people, so that stays a question, not a fact we've proved against the proposal.
What we’re looking for
We're asked to strengthen Peter's argument. My broad prediction is another reason to prefer the limited watering he recommends, or evidence answering a concern about it. The answer needs to support that choice, not just give us a fact about plants.
Working the answers
- A
Different leaf sizes and water absorption don't tell us whether the benefits of mild drought stress outweigh its costs. Farmers might need different amounts of water for different crops while the choice between mild stress and abundant watering remains unresolved. A doesn't establish which approach better limits damage.
- B
This describes how crops currently tend to be watered in industrialized nations. It doesn't show that the common practice is the better one, or that Peter's proposed change would be worse. A description of what farmers do doesn't establish what they should do to minimize damage.
- CCorrect
This compares the two threats involved in the choice. Mild drought stress may have a cost, but insect damage presents the greater threat. That gives Peter a reason to accept the smaller threat in order to reduce the larger one.
C doesn't claim that withholding water has no downside or settle every question about taste and marketability. It strengthens the particular case Peter makes about minimizing crop damage. Reducing a greater threat can be worthwhile even when the method introduces a lesser one.
- D
Rain may prevent farmers from controlling all the water their crops receive. That limits what they can achieve through their own watering decisions, but it doesn't favor Peter's recommendation over abundant watering. When farmers can choose how much water to add, D doesn't tell us which choice better protects the crop.
- E
This changes the insect as well as the watering condition. Perhaps Mexican bean beetles are much more inclined to eat soybeans than oak lace bugs are, regardless of how the plants are watered. That could produce E's comparison without telling us the effect of mild drought stress.
To investigate the watering effect, we'd want to compare the same kind of insect on drought-stressed and abundantly watered plants. Comparing beetles on one with lace bugs on the other mixes two differences. E doesn't isolate a reason to prefer Peter's watering practice.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.