PrepTest 113, Section 4, Question 25
In ancient Mesopotamia, prior to 2900 B.C., wheat(54 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(21 more words not shown)
- AThe cultivation of(11 more words not shown)
- BBarley has much(12 more words not shown)
- CPrior to 2900(22 more words not shown)
- DAround 2900 B.C.,(15 more words not shown)
- ELiterary and archaeological(24 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why wouldn't the barley have the same problem?
Wheat production declined while barley production rose. Before hearing the historians' explanation, I could imagine several reasons for that switch: maybe people preferred barley, or maybe it grew better under the conditions. The proposed explanation is that excessive irrigation and poor drainage left salt in the soil, hurting wheat production.
What we’re looking for
But if those conditions make growing grain difficult, why is barley doing better? We need a relevant difference between the crops. For a strengthener, I'd predict that barley tolerates one of these conditions better than wheat does. That would help explain why the farmers could produce more barley while wheat declined. It wouldn't prove the historians are right, but it would make the different outcomes fit their account.
Working the answers
- A
Needing less water doesn't mean coping better with too much water or with salt left in the soil. The proposed problem is excessive irrigation and poor drainage, not a shortage of water. A gives us a difference between the crops, but it doesn't establish the kind of difference that would explain their responses to the conditions in the theory.
- BCorrect
Barley is much more resistant to salt in the soil. So the same accumulation of salt could make wheat harder to grow while leaving barley as a more successful crop. That addresses our question about why the proposed problem would affect the two grains differently.
Notice that barley needn't be completely unaffected by salt. Greater resistance is enough to make the contrast more understandable. B supports the historians' explanation without proving that salt actually accumulated or that no other factor contributed.
- C
This gives us the relative amounts grown before the change. It doesn't explain why wheat production later fell or why salt would be responsible. Even knowing that barley had previously been the smaller crop leaves the proposed cause untested.
- D
This is relevant, but it points toward a different explanation. Repeated wheat blights could account for declining wheat production without the salt buildup being responsible. Explaining the decline somehow isn't our task; we're trying to support the historians' particular explanation. A rival cause works against that goal.
- E
More barley in people's diets fits with the reported increase in barley production. But it doesn't tell us why the agricultural change happened. People might eat more barley because it became easier to obtain, or increased demand might encourage farmers to grow it. E supplies no evidence connecting the change to irrigation, drainage or salt.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.