Logical Reasoning

PT120 · S3 · Q2 Being near woodlands, the natural

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

Being near woodlands, the natural habitat of bees, promotes the health of crops that depend on pollination.

Conclusion

Being near woodlands (i.e. near bees) promotes the health of crops that depend on pollination.

Evidence

Bees visit flowers far from woodlands less often than they visit flowers close to woodlands.

Evaluate

Without any keywords to guide us, it's a little tricky to figure out which claim is the Conclusion. They both sound more like facts than opinions, but we can ask ourselves which idea is Supported?

Why should we believe that ... being near woodlands (i.e. being near bees) promotes the health of crops that depend on pollination? Because ... bees are the #1 pollinator and they visit crops closer to woodlands more than they visit crops far from woodlands.

If we flipped that, it wouldn't make as much sense.

Why should we believe that ... bees visit flowers far from woodlands less than flowers close to woodlands? Because ... bees live in the woodlands. (it wouldn't make any sense to say, "because, [1st sentence].")

Once we have the argument pieces sorted out, we can think that this argument is making a Missing Link assumption, .

Or we could consider possible objections (so that we could think about answers going the opposite way). How could we argue that even though bees would visit it more, putting a crop near the woodlands wouldn't promote the crop's health?

Maybe other conditions near the woodlands are worse for the crop -- more pests, less sunshine, less water.

Goal

Look for an answer connecting "visited more" to "promotes health", or look for an answer ruling out an objection (or even going in the opposite direction) ... there is at least as much sun / water near the woodlands; there are same or fewer pests near the woodlands.

2.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

  1. Correct

    The likelihood that a plant

    Why this is right

    We were looking for a link from "visited more often" to "promotes the health". This is supplying a link from "visited more often" to "more likely to be pollinated". So is it fair for us to think that "more likely pollinated" = "promotes health"? Sure, after all, these crops are identified as "crops that depend on pollination". If being visited by bees more often increases the likelihood of something that these crops depend on, it sounds reasonable to think that this promotes the health of these crops.

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

    86% picked this

  2. Many bees live in habitats

    Weakens, if anything

    This is very weak wording ("many" doesn't have a precise definition, but at least five is a good functional one), so it's very unlikely to be correct on Strengthen, Weaken, or Paradox. Plus, the author is saying "being near woodlands is good for crops because that's the natural habitat of bees". If we point to there being bees away from the woodlands, that would start to drift towards a counterargument where we're saying, "we don't need to put these crops near the woodlands. There are bees in other places too."

    1% picked this

  3. Woodlands are not the natural

    Too Weak Weakens, if anything

    This is also incredibly weak wording. It is saying, "There is at least one pollinator that doesn't live near the woodlands". That's hardly a game-changer. We already know that bees make their home naturally in the woods, and that bees are the most common pollinator. Plus, just like (B), if we start talking about bees or other pollinators living away from the woodlands then we actually have less reason to think that putting crops near the woodlands offers an important benefit of being closer to pollinators.

    3% picked this

  4. Some pollinators visit flowers far

    Weakens, if anything Too Weak

    Another weakly worded answer -- some, sometimes, could, can, might, not all, not always are almost never in the correct answer for Strengthen, Weaken, or Paradox. The fact that there's at least one pollinator that visits far-flowers more than close-flowers would only weaken the logic of this argument. This argument is saying, "be close to the woodlands, so that you're close to bees, because bees visit close-flowers more than far-flowers."

    4% picked this

  5. Many crops that are not

    Irrelevant Distinction Weakens, if anything

    This is another answer, like (B), (C), and (D), that seems to be offering us counterexamples. (B) - bees don't always live in the woodlands (C) - not all pollinators have woodlands as their natural habitat (D) - not all pollinators visit close-flowers more than far-flowers (E) - not all crops are near the woodlands These are all moving away from what we were talking about in the argument.

    5% 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