PrepTest 127, Section 3, Question 5
Gardener: Researchers encourage us to allow certain kinds(60 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- ATo the extent(16 more words not shown)
- BAllowing certain kinds(17 more words not shown)
- CAllowing the right(18 more words not shown)
- DWe should be(15 more words not shown)
- EWe should be(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Letting some weeds grow could be a sensible trade. The weeds might use water that vegetables need, but repelling caterpillars could protect the vegetables enough to make that cost worthwhile. I'm open to the researchers' suggestion.
When the gardener calls the advice premature, I expect a concern that the weeds could be worse than the caterpillars. The gardener does identify possible costs: the weeds may deplete nutrients and moisture, and they might attract other damaging pests. Imagine getting rid of caterpillars only to attract rabbits that do even more damage. That is a possible downside, not a fact the argument has established.
Notice how cautious the gardener's conclusion is. We aren't told that weeds definitely cause more harm than good. We are told that, for all we know, they have costs that the recommendation hasn't addressed. That uncertainty supports waiting before embracing the advice. It would not establish that allowing these weeds is always a terrible idea.
What we’re looking for
For the main-conclusion question, the point to find is that the researchers' advice is premature. The researchers' recommendation sets up the issue, and the possible side effects support the gardener's caution about that recommendation.
Working the answers
- A
The gardener agrees that avoiding unnecessary insecticide use is wise. But that concession isn't the main point, and it doesn't recommend eliminating insecticides whenever doing so is possible. The argument evaluates advice to let weeds grow.
- B
The possibility of attracting other pests is part of the gardener's evidence, not the overall conclusion. Also, attracting different kinds of pests doesn't by itself establish a net increase in the number of unwanted pests. There could be fewer pests overall but more damaging ones. B shifts attention from the caution about the advice to one possible cost.
- C
This states the benefit behind the researchers' recommendation. The gardener doesn't need to deny that weeds repel caterpillars. The point is that this benefit may come with costs, so we shouldn't accept the recommendation on that benefit alone.
- DCorrect
Being cautious about allowing these weeds captures the conclusion that the researchers' advice is premature. The possible harm to the soil and the attraction of other pests explain why caution is warranted. D preserves that limited conclusion without claiming that the practice is definitely harmful overall.
- E
This questions whether the weeds reduce caterpillars as much as claimed. The gardener's objection concerns other consequences of letting the weeds grow. The weeds could repel caterpillars very effectively and still deplete nutrients or attract damaging pests. We need to keep doubts about side effects separate from doubts about the stated benefit.
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.