PrepTest 118, Section 4, Question 23
Agricultural economist: Over the past several years, increases(46 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(25 more words not shown)
- AIt is one(20 more words not shown)
- BIt is a(16 more words not shown)
- CIt is the(10 more words not shown)
- DIt is a(14 more words not shown)
- EIt is an(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Grain production has nearly stopped increasing. That isn't the same as grain production falling.
The economist says further increases will be extremely difficult because most usable farmland is already being worked with near-maximal efficiency. I can see the problem: if we are already getting nearly all we can from the available land, finding much more grain won't be easy. Still, could new technology help? Could land now used for other crops be switched to grain? Those possibilities are worth considering; we haven't been told that increasing production is literally impossible.
Then comes the forecast of a shortage. Demand is rising, but where is it starting relative to supply? Suppose the world currently produces five times as much grain as it needs. Demand could rise for a while without overtaking production. The trends alone don't tell us how close we are to running out.
What we’re looking for
We aren't asked to weaken that forecast, though. We're asked what role the claim about difficult production increases plays. It helps support the shortage prediction: if demand rises and supply is hard to increase, a shortage becomes a concern. So my first description would be that it supplies a reason for the conclusion. Keep following the support, because the statement about farmland also gives us a reason to believe this claim itself.
Working the answers
- A
The difficult-increases claim is a conclusion supported by the statement about farmland. But it does support the later shortage prediction. A's first part fits; the claim that neither conclusion supports the other does not.
- B
The main conclusion predicts a shortage. It doesn't explain what causes the difficulty of increasing grain production. The farmland statement supplies a reason for that difficulty earlier in the argument. B gives the main conclusion the wrong job.
- C
There is also rising demand. The economist combines that trend with the difficulty of raising production to predict a shortage. The claim we're identifying is therefore not the only support for the main conclusion.
- D
The claim does concern future difficulty, but its primary justification is the statement about farmland already being used nearly as efficiently as possible. That's the explanation immediately following the claim. The earlier observation that production increases have slowed sets up the discussion; it isn't the main explanation offered for why future increases will be so difficult.
- ECorrect
The claim does two jobs. The statement about land and efficiency supports it, making it a conclusion at that step. It then helps support the forecast of a grain shortage, making it evidence at the next step.
That's what an intermediate conclusion is: a supported claim that, in turn, supports the main conclusion. Calling it a premise wasn't wrong about its later job, but E gives the fuller description.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.