Logical Reasoning

PT118 · S1 · Q22 When uncontrollable factors such as

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

When uncontrollable factors such as lack of rain cause farmers’ wheat crops to fail, fertilizer and seed dealers, as well as truckers and mechanics, lose business, and fuel suppliers are unable to sell enough diesel fuel to make a profit.

Statements

On Must Be True we primarily read for wording clues of a Conditional, Causal, or Quantitative variety.

This paragraph has a Conditional "when", which is a sufficient indicator (put it on the left of the arrow).

And there is definitely causal language, such as "causes" and the implied repercussions of that first effect.

We can kind of combine our Conditional and Causal thinking then, and just articulate to ourselves the chain of causality.

1. Some uncontrollable factor such as a lack of rain causes wheat crops to fail.

2. The seed and fertilizer industry gets hurt.

3. Truckers and mechanics get hurt.

4. Fuel suppliers struggle.

The paragraph essentially describes an ecosystem of the economy that is intertwined with the wheat farmers.

Goal

It's hard to make a specific guess here, but one would think it would reinforce connecting that first cause from the final effect (or some subset of the causal chain).

Since a lack of rain could lead to fuel suppliers being unable to make a profit, you can say something like .

We don't know what to expect, but we'll be on guard for stuff that's Too Strong, Out of Scope, or Illegal Logic (reversals / opposites).

22.

Which one of the following claims follows logically from the information above?

  1. If several of the businesses

    Illegal Reversal

    We were told that farming struggles ? other related business will struggle too This answer is trying to reverse that relationship and go from right to left. farm-related businesses ? farming itself are struggling is struggling

    5% picked this

  2. If rainfall is below average,

    Bad Trigger Match

    We could probably say that when "lack of rain causes wheat crops to fail", that businesses that profit from farmers tend to lose money (bit of an overreach there, but gist-y). However, the trigger on this conditional is that "any time rainfall is below average" these related businesses will tend to lose money. That's way stronger than what we can derive from this paragraph. We don't know if having somewhat less than average rain would trigger all that stuff we talked about, just what a crop failure from lack of rain would result in.

    20% picked this

  3. Farmers are not responsible for

    Too Strong: not responsible

    Once again the trigger of this conditional will be more frequently fired than the trigger of the conditional we learned about in the paragraph. There, it was "if lack of rain causes wheat crops to fail", so the chain reactions are only when wheat crops fail. Here, it's "if lack of rain affects wheat growth", which is actually neutral enough that this would be triggered whether a lack of rain helped or hurt wheat growth. We're beyond the zone of what we were told with that trigger. Furthermore, the outcome that "farmers are not responsible for the consequences" is overdoing it. They're not "totally responsible" is fine, since we know the lack of rain would be an uncontrollable factor. But they could still be responsible for some of the consequences of a crop failure. But more than one thing can be responsible for the consequences of a wheat crop's failing. That's not saying "what is the reason that the wheat crops failed", it's saying "who is responsible for each of the things that happened as a result of the wheat crops' failing?" If a farmer never bought crop insurance, and this crop failure makes them go bankrupt, the farmer could still be held responsible for that consequence of a wheat crop's failing, for example.

    3% picked this

  4. A country’s dependence on agriculture

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: depends on agriculture Too Strong: major economic crises Even though the language of "X can lead to Y" is lovably soft (we only need one example to support it), we don't have an example to support it. We weren't told that the country depends on agriculture, and it's not clear that the economic repercussions described would qualify as a "major economic crisis".

    2% picked this

  5. Correct

    The consequences of a drought

    Why this is right

    The language of "The consequences of X are not restricted to Y" is lovably soft, since you'd only need one data point to support it. Do we know a consequence of a drought besides causing crops to fail (i.e. besides its impact on farm productivity)? Of course! We have a shiny causal chain in our backpack for you. Let me tell you --- you thought the drought just hurt farm productivity? Have a seat. We're talking seed dealers, fertilizer dealers, truckers, mechanics, and fuel suppliers ... all impacted! This answer is as annoying as that brief playlet I just wrote, because it introduces the idea of drought, and we're being asked on a Must Be True question to magically assume some common sense that a drought is a lack of rain, and that a lack of rain resulting from a drought could plausibly cause wheat crops to fail.

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

    70% 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