Logical Reasoning

PT108 · S2 · Q24 Agricultural economist: We can increase

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Agricultural economist: We can increase agricultural production without reducing biodiversity, but only if we abandon conventional agriculture.

Conclusion (Thus)

If we choose to sustain economic growth, we should radically modify agricultural techniques.

Evidence

Sustained economic growth requires increasing agricultural production.

We can increase agricultural production without reducing biodiversity, but only if we abandon conventional agriculture.

Evaluate

The conclusion is conditional, so we should start from the author's trigger and idea and see if it goes anywhere, so that we can better sense the gap between where the evidence leaves off and what the outcome (right side) of the conclusion's conditional is.

If we choose sustaining economic growth, then we have to increase agricultural production.

How do we increase agricultural production? We can apparently do it w/o reducing biodiversity as long as we abandon conventional agriculture.

But maybe we can also increase agricultural production other ways, ways that would hang on to conventional agriculture but would reduce biodiversity? This sort of pros/cons type argument is what we refer to as Weighing Tradeoffs.

The outcome of the conclusion is saying "we should radically modify agricultural techniques", so we can see that this author is talking about abandoning conventional agriculture. A radical modification of techniques is essentially trying a whole new technique.

Goal

The author is faced with a fork in the road ... to increase agricultural production, we can potentially keep conventional agriculture but reduce biodiversity, or we can abandon conventional agriculture and maintain biodiversity.

She suggests that we choose the 2nd option, so when it comes to weighing these tradeoffs, she finds it very compelling that we avoid reducing biodiversity.

We want the answer to tip the scales in the direction the author is thinking:

24.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the agricultural economist's reasoning?

  1. Agricultural production should be reduced

    Unrelated to Goal

    This has nothing to do with the choice the author is faced with: 1. abandon conventional but maintain biodiversity 2. maintain conventional but reduce biodiversity This is talking about an option that would reduce agricultural production and increase biodiversity. Since this choice has nothing to do with our current conversation, it's not helping the author to strengthen the decision she is making in our current conversation.

    1% picked this

  2. Correct

    Economic growth should not be

    Why this is right

    We wanted to hear that "maintaining biodiversity is more important than is maintaining conventional agricultural techniques". This is basically the closest we're getting. The conclusion begins, "If we're choosing to sustain economic growth". We are told that doing so will require increasing agricultural production, and this answer is adding "we also shouldn't tolerate any loss of biodiversity". Now that we've established how crucial maintaining biodiversity is, the first sentence is saying, "Okay, we'll there's a way to increase production while maintaining biodiversity, but it would require abandoning conventional agriculture". This gets the author to her conclusion of, "Okay, then. If we're going to sustain growth, then we'll need to abandon conventional agriculture".

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

    63% picked this

  3. Economic growth should be sustained

    Adds Nothing

    This doesn't really tell us anything we didn't already know. The conclusion has a factual premise built in as a which-modifier. We already know that sustaining economic growth requires increasing agricultural production, so this answer seems to be just reiterating that same idea again.

    9% picked this

  4. Preserving biodiversity is no more

    Opposite, if anything

    We want to hear that "preserving biodiversity is more important than maintaining conventional agricultural techniques" or that "we've got to maintain biodiversity". The author is making her decision based on the route that is required if we are trying to avoid reducing biodiversity, so the correct answer needs to establish that we are trying to avoid reducing biodiversity. This answer starts off by saying "Preserving biodiversity is no more important than ...", so we know this is moving in the wrong direction.

    5% picked this

  5. Agricultural techniques should be radically

    If-Conclusion

    Since the idea we're trying to justify is "we should radically modify agricultural techniques", we would only want to see that on the right side of a conditional statement. Any time we see the idea we're trying to prove in the trigger (unless it's the negated version of that idea), we know it's automatically wrong. If we're trying to justify the conclusion, "Thus, Eric is a jerk", any answer that begins "If someone is a jerk" is automatically dead in the water. This answer says, "If radically modifying agricultural techniques wouldn't increase agricultural production, we shouldn't radically modify them". That doesn't match the move this argument is making from evidence to conclusion.

    22% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free