PT105 · S1 · Q23 Deep tillage is even more

This answer is very tempting, and I would consider picking it if the correct answer weren't there. It has the lovable quality of ruling out an idea with the word "no/not". When we negate it, it starts to suggest Reverse Causality: topsoil erosion does make farmers want to till more deeply I'm surprised this answer choice is here, since it seems like we shouldn't be forced to compare (A) and (C) and ask, "Which is better?" However, if we need to, we can ask ourselves, "Which answer, if negated, most weakens", and the light suggestion of reverse causality we get from this answer isn't nearly compelling as the objection we get from (C). If LSAC had a different reason for thinking this answer was wrong, I would suspect it's either because 1. the issue isn't about whether it makes the farmers want to till more deeply but whether it requires that the farmers actually do till more deeply 2. the correlation might be tensed in a way that precludes Reverse Causality (f.e. "ppl who are X are more likely to develop Y" has a chronological dimension to it that sounds like they were X before they developed Y). If the correlation where phrased, "Farmers who till deeply are ten times more likely to have lost topsoil to erosion", then it's pretty ambiguous which came first. But because it says "to lose topsoil to erosion", it seems to imply a future condition that comes after the deep tilling has already started.

Too Strong: the more X, the more Y These kind of Volume Dial formulations are the most extreme type of statement we see on LSAT, because they extend infinitely in both directions. Does the author have to assume that 99 feet of deep tilling creates greater susceptibility to topsoil erosion than 98 feet of deep tilling? That 2cm of tilling creates more susceptibility than 1cm of tilling? The author definitely thinks that deep-tilling has a harmful effect on topsoil erosion, but it doesn't have to be an infinitely proportional connection as this answer describes.

Too Strong / Out of Scope: most expensive The passage never delves into the expense of different methods of tilling, so we have no reason to say the author has committed herself to believing anything about the most expensive farming methods.

The author isn't endorsing no-till methods because she thinks they lead to more aerated topsoil. She's doing so because she thinks they lead to less topsoil erosion. We can't accuse her of believing that no-till is better at aerating than deep till. Even if they're just equally good at aerating the soil, the author's argument still works.