PrepTest 135, Section 1, Question 13
Researchers have studied the cost-effectiveness of growing halophytes—salt-tolerant(55 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(7 more words not shown)
- AA given volume(19 more words not shown)
- BSome halophytes not(10 more words not shown)
- CLarge research expenditures(13 more words not shown)
- DCosts other than(18 more words not shown)
- EPumping water for(19 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Cheap water sounds promising. Does it make the whole crop cost-effective?
Halophytes are plants that tolerate salt, and the proposed use is animal feed. Using seawater near sea level would save money on pumping compared with drawing freshwater from deep wells. But the plants need more water and produce smaller yields. I'd want to know whether this is useful feed at a worthwhile total cost, not just whether we can grow something in salt water.
What we’re looking for
For a strengthener, my initial thought is to establish that these plants really are a good agricultural option. Evidence that they provide useful feed economically would help. Salt tolerance alone doesn't settle that question: the proposal has to deliver enough value to justify what we spend on it.
Working the answers
- A
“Different” nutritional value could mean better or worse. More nutritious feed might make the smaller harvest more attractive; less nutritious feed could do the opposite. Without a direction, this information doesn't strengthen the case for cost-effectiveness.
- B
Requiring salt tells us something about what these plants need to grow. It doesn't show that growing them this way is economical. A plant could thrive in seawater and still be too expensive to grow or produce too little useful feed.
- C
Large research expenses add a possible cost. They don't support the claim that the approach is cost-effective. The answer doesn't establish that the plants can never be economical, but it gives us an additional expense to consider rather than a reason to favor the conclusion.
- D
This raises another useful question: what about costs beyond irrigation? Maybe these plants require specially trained workers or costly protection from the sun. Cheaper pumping wouldn't automatically settle the total cost.
But D says only that those other costs are different. Are they higher or lower? If we silently assume they're lower, we make the answer sound helpful; if they're higher, it could undermine the argument. We can't choose the favorable direction for the answer.
- ECorrect
Pumping water is one of the largest costs in producing and supplying animal feed. That makes a cheaper way of pumping water a substantial economic advantage rather than a saving on a minor expense.
This is a cost-based route to supporting the proposal. It doesn't establish that halophytes are the best feed or that every other cost is lower. Nor does “one of the largest” mean pumping is necessarily the single largest expense. It means the specific saving the argument relies on could matter a great deal to the total, which makes the conclusion more plausible.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.