PrepTest 143, Section 1, Question 16
It is possible to grow agricultural crops that(54 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(24 more words not shown)
- AIt is a(8 more words not shown)
- BIt is a(9 more words not shown)
- CIt is evidence(6 more words not shown)
- DIt is the(2 more words not shown)
- EIt is a(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A shorter trip for the water sounds cheaper. Would it make the whole farming operation cheaper?
The author gives us a reason to think so: pumping is normally the biggest irrigation expense, and pumping farther costs more. Put crops near the ocean, use seawater they can tolerate, and the water doesn't have far to travel. Reducing the biggest expense could make a substantial difference.
I might still ask about other costs. What if growing these crops requires unusually expensive labor or equipment? And whether people want to buy the crops is another question about the business, though it doesn't directly answer the claim about production costs. We can raise those questions while recognizing what supports what.
What we’re looking for
The role question targets the claim that pumping is the greatest expense. That's a reason for believing the proposed farming would be cheaper. The author uses it as evidence; the author doesn't give further evidence establishing it.
Working the answers
- A
The author accepts the pumping-cost claim and relies on it. Nothing in the passage attempts to show that it is false. Disproving it would undermine the stated reason for expecting a large saving.
- B
If pumping really is the largest expense, reducing it gives us a reason to expect cheaper farming. The claim supports the conclusion rather than undermining it. Other possible costs don't change the role the author assigns it.
- CCorrect
The conclusion is that farming suitable crops near oceans would be cheaper than most other irrigated agriculture. The pumping-cost claim helps explain why: the short distance reduces what is normally the largest expense. That makes it supporting evidence.
- D
The point isn't simply to tell us what irrigation's biggest expense is. The author uses that information to argue for a cost advantage of a particular kind of farming. The targeted claim is one step supporting that larger conclusion.
- E
We aren't given evidence that pumping is the greatest expense. The author states that fact and then uses it. E would describe an intermediate claim supported by something earlier, but no such support for this claim appears.
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.