Slash-and-burn agriculture

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct89% picked this

   forests in the tropics do not regenerate well enough to restore themselves once they have been cleared

   Why this is right

   The argument concludes that we'll end up with no more forest because of the slash and burn cylce in which we're slashing and burning ever more land for agriculture. But if burned land could regenerate back INTO forest, that argument falls apart. This argument assumes, then, that the land will NOT regenerate back into forest. Answer choice A is a Defender Assumption that neutralizes an objection. If you found this one hard to love because it introduced the idea of regeration, remember that it's OK for a Defender Assumption to bring in a new idea, so long as that new idea is part of a salient Objection to the argument that we need to neutralize in order for the argument to work.

   Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   89%
2. B

   Unsupported Comparison3% picked this

   some other methods of agriculture are not as destructive to the environment in tropical regions as

   Condemning one method, plan or recommendation, that doesn't require assuming that some other method/plan/rec is actually better. That's a classic LSAT trap answer, and a flavor of Unsupported Comparison.

   3%
3. C

   Scope (nutrients, non-native plants)3% picked this

   forests in the tropics are naturally deficient in nutrients that are needed to support the growth of plants that are

   Our conclusion about the impact of slash and burn doesn't hinge on any relationship between nutrient deficiency and non native plants.

   3%
4. D

   Premise Support4% picked this

   slash-and-burn agriculture is particularly suitable for farming in

   A premise tells us that "most farming in the tropics uses this method". We accept premises as true: they don't require assuming anything. Does D explain why most farming in the tropics uses slash and burn? Sure. But we don't need to assume that's true in order for the argument to work. Maybe most farming uses slash and burn because it's the cheapest, or the least labor intensive. Whatever the reason, the fact remains that most farms are doing it, and that's all we need for our argument.

   4%
5. E

   Scope (1st year) / Unsupported Comparison1% picked this

   slash-and-burn agriculture produces a more bountiful crop than do other agriculture methods for

   The argument already tells us that most tropical ag is slash and burn and, because of the neverending cylce, concludes we'll slash all the forest. We don't need to assume anything about the crops on the farmland, or how it stacks up against other types of ag in year one, or any other year.

   1%