PrepTest 113, Section 3, Question 11
Several thousand years ago, people in what is(76 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(19 more words not shown)
- AThe variety of(20 more words not shown)
- BModern varieties of(18 more words not shown)
- CThe people did(18 more words not shown)
- DSome of the(21 more words not shown)
- EThe people discovered(25 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why keep growing the crop that left people with nutritional problems?
There is a real advantage on the other side: corn grows faster and provides more food from the same land. What if the more nutritious grains hadn't provided enough food? People might choose a less nutritious staple to avoid going hungry. That is one possible explanation, not a fact the passage establishes about their earlier diet.
Taste is another possibility. People sometimes prefer a food even when it has a drawback. We haven't been told that these people liked corn better, but it gives us another reason not to assume nutrition was the only consideration.
What we’re looking for
The question asks us to explain their continued choice. Keep both parts: corn brought a nutritional problem, yet they kept it as the staple when they could have switched back. I'd look for a benefit that made staying with corn worthwhile, or a fact that makes the apparent conflict less puzzling.
Working the answers
- A
This compares the chosen corn with its own ancestors. The relevant choice was between corn and the more nutritious grains the people could return to growing. We already know corn provides a lot of food. A doesn't tell us that the other grains would leave people hungry, or otherwise explain accepting the nutritional drawback. Our possible food-shortage explanation needs that further connection.
- B
Better corn available today doesn't explain a decision made thousands of years earlier. Those people couldn't choose the modern varieties described here. B leaves us asking why they continued with the less nutritious corn available to them.
- C
This rules out one potential source of extra nutrients. If the people had obtained the missing nutrients from meat or milk, that might help explain sticking with corn. Saying they did not domesticate animals for those foods doesn't supply that solution. It leaves the nutritional problem in place.
- D
Other grains being able to flourish in less fertile soil doesn't give these people a reason to prefer corn. If anything, it points to another possible advantage of alternatives. It doesn't explain why corn's nutritional drawback was acceptable or manageable.
- ECorrect
This gives a way to address the nutritional problem while keeping corn's benefits. Corn could remain the staple grain while readily available nongrain foods improved the diet. 'Staple' doesn't have to mean the only thing people eat.
This is different from my initial guesses about hunger or taste. The people needn't accept the same health problem indefinitely just to keep growing corn. They could add other foods, significantly improve their health, and still obtain the large food supply corn provides. E doesn't promise perfect health; it gives a reason returning to the old grain wasn't their only attractive option.
More Paradox questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Paradox questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.