PrepTest 152, Section 1, Question 21
Farmer: Farming with artificial fertilizers, though more damaging(58 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the farmer's(13 more words not shown)
- AIt takes for(18 more words not shown)
- BIt overlooks the(20 more words not shown)
- CIt fails to(24 more words not shown)
- DIt overlooks the(27 more words not shown)
- EIt takes for(21 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Not everyone can do it. That doesn't mean nobody else can start.
The farmer gives us a tradeoff: artificial fertilizers damage the environment more but produce more food from the same land. Accept the next claim too: an entirely organic farming system couldn't feed the growing population. We therefore need some farmers to use artificial fertilizers. But how does that establish that organic farming can't expand at all?
What we’re looking for
Imagine organic farming increasing from 1 percent of farms to 2 percent. Those aren't the actual percentages; they illustrate how far a little growth can be from universal adoption. We haven't been told that this increase would cause a shortage. For the flaw, I'd focus on that jump from 'not everyone' to 'no further spread.'
Working the answers
- A
The argument doesn't depend on the environmental damage being only slight. Artificial fertilizers could be much worse for the environment, and the farmer could still argue that some use is needed to produce enough food. The problem is the further claim that no additional organic farming can be allowed, not an assumed size of the environmental cost.
- BCorrect
Organic farming can spread while many farmers continue using artificial fertilizers. The bad result associated with everyone going organic therefore doesn't establish that any additional adoption will cause that result. B doesn't prove a particular amount of expansion would be safe; it identifies a possibility the farmer's leap ignores.
- C
A past population might have been fed without artificial fertilizers, but the argument concerns Earth's growing population now. Different population sizes and circumstances could make both claims true. A historical example doesn't directly expose the leap from insufficient food under universal adoption to rejecting any further adoption.
- D
A shortage could begin before every farmer went organic. That possibility doesn't challenge the farmer's caution about further expansion; it could give more reason for caution. The flaw is that the farmer hasn't established that even the next increase would go too far. D also doesn't say hunger is inevitable under every arrangement, only that less than universal adoption could produce the consequence.
- E
Environmental harm could also harm human health without changing the food-output comparison. That might be another cost to weigh in a broader policy debate. The stated reasoning doesn't need artificial fertilizers to be harmless; it needs evidence for why any further organic expansion would prevent enough food from being produced.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.