PrepTest 137, Section 2, Question 7
Antibiotics are standard ingredients in animal feed because(38 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- AIf scientists are(21 more words not shown)
- BIf antibiotic use(14 more words not shown)
- CIf the scientists'(16 more words not shown)
- DIf the health(14 more words not shown)
- EIf antibiotic use(22 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The scientists' proposal could create a problem for farmers. Antibiotics help keep animals healthy and increase meat yields. Remove that help, and yields could fall. We're told that reduced yields would put some farmers out of business.
That gives us a connection to follow: phasing out antibiotics could lead to lower yields, which could lead to business failures. The concern about human health explains why scientists recommend the change, but a recommendation isn't the change itself.
What we’re looking for
For the most-supported conclusion, I'd look for that consequence of actually following the recommendation. Keep the steps separate: what scientists believe, what policy gets adopted, and what happens to meat production.
Working the answers
- A
The scientists could be right and their recommendation could still be ignored. Suppose everyone accepts their concern but farmers continue using antibiotics. The production change we're worried about hasn't happened. Being right about an effect on human medicine doesn't itself put farmers out of business.
- B
The scientists believe the practice may make antibiotics less effective in humans. That doesn't establish that it certainly will, much less that some antibiotics will become ineffective altogether. B turns a possible reduction in effectiveness into a definite loss of effectiveness.
- C
Antibiotics aren't established as the only thing that can affect meat yields. A disease outbreak or some other production problem could reduce yields even if antibiotic use continued. Rejecting this particular recommendation doesn't guarantee that no farmer will fail because of reduced yields.
- D
We know that reduced meat yields would put some farmers out of business. D shifts to declining animal health and says most farmers couldn't stay in business. Neither that broader quantity nor that exact connection is given. Some farmers failing doesn't establish that a majority would fail.
- ECorrect
This follows the production chain and adds an important qualification to my initial prediction. If antibiotics are phased out, farmers lose something that increases yields. Unless they replace that benefit by some other means, the resulting reduction threatens some farmers' businesses.
The qualification matters. The passage doesn't say antibiotics are the only way to increase yields. Finding another way could prevent the production loss and therefore avoid the business failures attributed to that loss. E preserves the consequence while leaving room for that alternative.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.