PrepTest 124, Section 1, Question 23
Robust crops not only withstand insect attacks more(74 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- AThe application of(11 more words not shown)
- BInsects never attack(12 more words not shown)
- CThe application of(17 more words not shown)
- DCrops that are(12 more words not shown)
- EGrowing crops without(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Does good soil actually make the plants stronger?
The passage gives us a reason to want robust crops. They are less likely to be attacked, and they withstand attacks better when insects do come. Killing the insects is a different approach. It could protect a crop from some damage while leaving the plants themselves just as vulnerable to the next attack.
Then the author recommends good soil. I can see the intended connection: improve the soil, grow more robust plants, and reduce their vulnerability. But the middle step hasn't been stated. Nutrients, organic matter, and microbial activity describe the soil. We still need to know what that soil does for the crops.
What we’re looking for
For the necessary assumption, that's my prediction: crops grown in good soil tend to be more robust. If that connection fails, the discussion of robust plants gives us no basis for recommending good soil as the better way to address their underlying weakness.
Working the answers
- A
This connects two soil ingredients to another feature of the soil. It doesn't connect good soil to stronger crops. We could improve microbial activity by some different means and still use the author's reasoning. The needed assumption concerns what good soil does for the plants, not how we produce the soil.
- B
Never is much more than we need. Imagine that good soil made attacks far less common but didn't eliminate them. The proposed benefit could still hold. The passage even says robust crops withstand attacks better, which allows for some attacks. Total protection isn't required.
- C
Pesticides could reduce the damage insects cause without fixing the crops' underlying vulnerability. Killing insects now may spare some leaves while leaving the plants weak. The author can prefer a way of making crops more robust without assuming pesticides provide no protection at all.
- DCorrect
This supplies the missing link between the recommendation and the evidence. Good soil tends to produce more robust crops; robust crops resist insect damage better. Without that connection, why would the earlier facts about robust plants support growing crops in good soil?
We aren't claiming this one fact proves every aspect of the comparison with pesticides. We're identifying a connection the author's stated reasoning needs.
- E
The argument doesn't need pesticides to make plants more robust than they would be without pesticides. Its recommendation concerns improving soil. Even if pesticide use left the plants' robustness unchanged, the reasoning could still favor good soil as a way to strengthen them. E adds a comparison about pesticide use instead of supplying the soil-to-crop connection.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.