PrepTest 157, Section 2, Question 3
Although there are immediate short-term gains in crop(44 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(7 more words not shown)
- Ais(1 more words not shown)
- Bdamages the(1 more words not shown)
- Cwill eventually make(3 more words not shown)
- Dis probably not(6 more words not shown)
- Egives financial returns(4 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
More crops right away sounds useful. But what happens if we keep using the pesticide?
That's the question raised by the opening promise of short-term gains. A treatment could help at first and become less useful later. We might also wonder about possible damage to the soil or the surrounding environment, but those are questions to investigate, not facts we've been given.
The studies answer the narrower question about crop yield. Long-term use gradually brings the yield down from its initially boosted level. So the benefit fades over time. Be careful about where that decline starts: from the higher level produced by the first application. The passage doesn't say that yields eventually fall below where they were before the pesticide was used.
What we’re looking for
We need to finish the argument with a conclusion the evidence supports. I'd expect something like, “The initial benefit doesn't last at the same level.” An answer declaring the treatment a complete failure would go beyond the decline we've actually been told about.
Working the answers
- A
A smaller return isn't necessarily an uneconomic one. Imagine the treatment initially produces a large extra crop and later produces a smaller extra crop that is still worth more than the treatment costs. Yields have declined from the boosted level, but using the pesticide could still pay. We aren't given the costs or a comparison with what the farm would produce without it.
- B
Environmental damage was a reasonable concern to raise, but the passage doesn't establish it. A decline in crop yield isn't itself a finding that the surrounding environment has been damaged. Don't turn an alternative we considered into evidence the author supplied.
- C
We know that the crop yield declines, not that pest problems become unmanageable. There could be some other reason for the decline, such as an effect on the plants or soil. The argument doesn't identify the cause, much less establish that pests will eventually be impossible to manage.
- D
Nothing tells us what the manufacturers recommend or whether farmers follow those instructions. The decline could occur even with perfectly proper use. This introduces a possible explanation for the results without any evidence for it.
- ECorrect
The financial returns diminish over time. The initial application increases the crop yield, while continued use produces less than that initially elevated amount. On the ordinary connection between crop production and the returns from it, the benefit becomes smaller. This is much more limited than A: the returns can diminish while using the pesticide remains financially worthwhile. We don't need to conclude that the farm is ruined or that the treatment never pays.
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.