PrepTest 146, Section 3, Question 2
An unstable climate was probably a major cause(47 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(6 more words not shown)
- APolitical failures within(14 more words not shown)
- BThe areas of(25 more words not shown)
- CPoor farming practices(17 more words not shown)
- DDuring periods when(14 more words not shown)
- ETotal food production(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The climate fluctuated while Rome declined. Was the climate a major reason for the decline?
The timing alone doesn't establish that connection. Two things can happen during the same period without one being a major cause of the other. But the author does more than put them next to each other: unstable weather hurts food production, and a food shortage could make an empire harder to rule and defend. That gives us a plausible way the climate could matter.
Still, how much did it matter? Perhaps the weather caused a relatively small problem while something else, such as an invasion, did most of the damage. Showing a possible contribution isn't enough to establish a major cause.
What we’re looking for
We're asked to strengthen the argument. I'd look for evidence that the food problem seriously undermined the empire, or that a competing explanation didn't account for the decline. We want more reason to connect the empire's fortunes with the climate and its effect on agriculture.
Working the answers
- A
This runs from political failures to conflicts that damage agriculture. The author's story runs from climate problems to agricultural problems that make the empire harder to maintain. A gives a different source of agricultural trouble; it doesn't strengthen the proposed role of climate in bringing about the decline.
- B
This makes the proposed connection less convincing. Areas with the greatest climatic instability didn't have unusual levels of unrest. That doesn't prove the weather had no effect, but it provides no support for the idea that unstable weather undermined the empire through the suggested pressures. Don't silently replace climatic instability with an established food shortage; the answer gives us the former.
- C
Depleted soil could help explain poor food production, but this answer attributes the depletion to poor farming practices. That doesn't establish a role for unstable climate. It gives us another possible source of the agricultural problems rather than supporting the explanation the author proposes.
- DCorrect
When the empire was doing well, the weather was consistently good for agriculture. Alongside the bad-weather-and-decline pattern in the passage, that gives us another connection between agricultural conditions and the empire's fortunes.
This doesn't eliminate every competing cause or prove how much the weather contributed. It helps in a more limited way: the favorable conditions go with successful periods, just as unfavorable conditions accompany the decline. That added pattern gives the proposed explanation more support.
- E
More total food production at the end of the period doesn't support a story about climatic damage to food production. Also, the total concerns Europe, not just the Roman empire. Output elsewhere could change while Rome's food problems remained unresolved. We can't use this broad increase as evidence that climate-driven shortages were a major cause of Rome's fall.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.