PrepTest 127, Section 2, Question 25
Farmer: In the long run, it is counterproductive(29 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(29 more words not shown)
- AIt is the(8 more words not shown)
- BIt is a(21 more words not shown)
- CIt is the(3 more words not shown)
- DIt is a(24 more words not shown)
- EIt identifies a(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why would insecticide use be counterproductive in the long run? My first thoughts might be damage to crops or soil, but the farmer gives a different reason. As use increases, insects become more resistant, and farmers need increasingly large amounts of costly insecticides to control them.
That is a real drawback within the argument. Still, I would want to compare it with the alternatives before deciding that use is counterproductive overall. If using no insecticide left many more pests damaging the crops, perhaps the extra expense would still be worthwhile. Pointing out a cost doesn't by itself settle that comparison.
We aren't asked to fix that issue, though. We are asked what role the claim about increasing quantities plays. Start with the main point: insecticide use is counterproductive over the long run. Needing more and more of an expensive product is offered as a reason for that judgment.
What we’re looking for
The preceding clause also explains why the quantities increase: the insects' resistance rises. So the selected claim has a causal explanation on one side and supports the main judgment on the other. Keep those two relationships separate when reading the answers.
Working the answers
- A
The selected claim isn't the main conclusion. It supplies the increasing-cost consideration meant to support the farmer's judgment that using insecticides is counterproductive. That judgment is what the argument is trying to establish.
- BCorrect
Increased resistance explains why farmers need larger quantities. The need for larger quantities of costly insecticides then directly supports the conclusion that use is counterproductive in the long run. B captures both the explanation of the selected fact and its role as evidence for the argument's only conclusion.
- C
This again mistakes the supporting claim for the conclusion. The farmer's overall point is the long-run judgment about using insecticides, not merely that farmers need to apply more of them.
- D
There is no separate intermediary conclusion between this cost claim and the main point. The claim directly supports the counterproductive judgment. Imagine the argument then added, 'Therefore, Bob, who relies on insecticides, is not thinking about the long run.' In that longer argument, the counterproductive judgment could become an intermediate step supporting a further conclusion. That additional step isn't present here.
- E
The main conclusion doesn't explain why farmers use increasing quantities. Increased insect resistance provides that causal explanation. The main conclusion instead evaluates the practice as counterproductive. E assigns the explanatory role to the wrong statement.
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.