PrepTest 137, Section 4, Question 21
Farmer: My neighbor claims that my pesticides are(40 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- AIt treats lack(17 more words not shown)
- BIt presumes, without(13 more words not shown)
- CIt does not(15 more words not shown)
- DIt fails to(13 more words not shown)
- EIt ignores the(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Harmless pesticides could still wash onto someone else's land.
The neighbor says runoff water carries the farmer's pesticides onto her farm. A useful response might show that the farmer uses no pesticides, or that the water flows away from her land. Instead, the farmer talks about organic pesticides and the lack of evidence that they harm people or domestic animals. That addresses danger, not movement.
What we’re looking for
The claim about careful spraying misses the route too. Even if every drop is sprayed on the farmer's own land, rainwater could later carry it across the boundary. For the flaw answer, keep returning to what the neighbor actually alleged. Neither safety nor careful initial placement answers the claim about runoff.
Working the answers
- A
Lack of evidence of harm wouldn't prove that harm is impossible. But the farmer doesn't draw that conclusion here. The conclusion rejects the claim that pesticides are spreading to the neighbor's farm. A targets a potential mistake in an argument about safety, while missing the actual failure to address movement through runoff.
- B
We can grant that the farmer's care completely succeeds in preventing direct spraying on the neighbor's land. The neighbor's complaint could still be true because water carries the pesticides there later. We don't need to challenge whether care succeeds; even successful avoidance of direct spraying leaves the alleged route unanswered.
- CCorrect
The farmer rejects the runoff claim without providing evidence against it. Organic pesticides that cause no demonstrated harm can still travel in water, and pesticides carefully sprayed on one property can later wash onto another. The response addresses different concerns while leaving the neighbor's claim intact.
- D
The farmer wouldn't necessarily need to explain an alternative source of pesticides to challenge this claim. Evidence that no runoff reaches the property, for example, could address the alleged route directly. The problem is the failure to address the neighbor's explanation, not a general requirement to provide a competing explanation.
- E
Perhaps the pesticides harm wildlife or something other than people and domestic animals. But that would raise another safety question. Whether the pesticides are dangerous in some additional way doesn't resolve whether they are spreading onto the neighbor's land.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.