Logical Reasoning

PT116 · S2 · Q14 Resident: Residents of this locale

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

Resident: Residents of this locale should not consider their loss of farming as a way of life to be a tragedy.

Conclusion (should = opinion)

Residents of the area should not consider the loss of farming to be a tragedy.

Evidence

The area now supports over 20 times the number of jobs it used to, with high tech / high wage jobs.

Evaluate

To support the conclusion that losing farming isn't tragic, we should look for evidence showing that the new economic opportunities outweigh any sentimental or economic loss associated with farming. We'd also wanna make sure that the residents of the area who used to be employed by farming are included among the ones now benefiting from the high tech / high wage jobs.

Goal

Find an answer that helps us say,

14.

Which one of the following, if true, does the most to justify the conclusion of the resident's argument?

Farming is becoming increasingly efficient,
Weaker Impact
Maybe we could try to say, "Don't be sad about losing farming. We just don't need as many farms now that we're this efficient", but that's not a great way to reassure someone: "Don't be sad -- we just don't need you anymore".
2% picked this
The development of high-tech industry
Weaker Impact
Maybe we could try to say, "Don't be sad about losing farming. This area now supports high-tech industry, which is more valuable to national security than farming." But saying that something is needed for national security isn't a great way to reassure someone. "Don't be sad that your kid died overseas in WWII -- fighting this war is better for our national security than staying out of it would have been."
3% picked this
Correct
Residents of this locale do
Why this is right
If the residents care at least as much about economic prosperity, then we can say, "Don't be sad about losing farming. Now you've got economic prosperity, which you value at least as much!" This reads like a Defender necessary assumption, with the telltale "not". If we negated this answer, it would be a crushing blow to the argument. The residents would say, "Who cares that we're economically thriving! We don't want sterile office jobs. We wanted to work the land. We value that way of life more than economic prosperity". So we know the argument is assuming this, and affirming an assumption always strengthens.
Skill tested: Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
66% picked this
Many residents of this locale
Too Weak: many
This indicates that some number of residents make more money now, but "many" isn't that strong a quantity, and we don't know if these are former farers or if they value income over their traditional lifestyle, leaving open the idea of farming as a tragedy.
26% picked this
The loss of a family
Weakens
This states that losing a family farm is often perceived as tragic, directly opposing the notion that residents should not view the loss of farming tragically.
2% 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