PrepTest 125, Section 2, Question 24
There are 1.3 billion cows worldwide, and this(68 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(12 more words not shown)
- ACows given good-quality(12 more words not shown)
- BCarbon and hydrogen,(19 more words not shown)
- CMost farmers would(16 more words not shown)
- DWorldwide, more methane(15 more words not shown)
- EPer liter, methane(23 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Less methane per cow sounds helpful. But will that keep total methane production in check while the number of cows keeps growing?
Imagine a cow's output dropping from 100 units to 90. That's a reduction, but we still need to know whether it's enough. And there's another possible complication: what if the better diet reduces the amount of meat and milk each cow provides? We might then need more cows to meet the same demand. More cows could offset the benefit of less methane from each one.
We could also ask whether better feed is expensive or whether the money would do more good elsewhere. Those would matter to a recommendation about what farmers should do. This conclusion is narrower: what would happen if the cows received better diets? Cost and willingness don't settle that effect.
What we’re looking for
For a strengthener, I'd like evidence that the reduction is substantial enough or that meeting demand won't require extra cows. Either would help connect the individual cow's lower emissions with keeping the overall amount under control.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The better diet produces more meat and milk per cow, not less. That removes the concern that farmers would need extra cows to maintain the same output. It also gives them a way to meet demand with fewer cows than they otherwise would need. Combine that with less methane per cow, and the plan has a stronger basis: lower emissions from each animal and less need to expand the herd. A doesn't guarantee what every farmer will do or settle all future demand, but it supports the proposed effect.
- B
The ingredients of methane can be present in both kinds of feed while the cows produce different amounts of methane. We already accept that better diets lead to less methane per cow. B doesn't tell us whether that reduction will keep total production in check.
- C
This concerns whether farmers would adopt the change if feed were cheaper. The conclusion concerns what would happen if cows received the better diet. Greater willingness doesn't show that the resulting methane reduction would be enough. Also, C doesn't establish that feed actually will become cheaper.
- D
Meat production versus milk production isn't the comparison the conclusion depends on. The relevant change is from lower-quality diets to better-quality diets. Knowing which existing group produces more methane doesn't show how the total would respond to that change.
- E
How potent methane is compared with carbon dioxide could help explain why reducing methane matters. It doesn't show whether better feed would control the amount cows produce. A serious problem doesn't automatically make a proposed response effective.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.