Logical Reasoning

PT125 · S2 · Q24 There are 1.3 billion cows

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

There are 1.3 billion cows worldwide, and this population is growing to keep pace with the demand for meat and milk.

Conclusion (therefore)

Methane production from cows could be kept in check if cows were given better-quality diets.

Evidence

Most cows currently get low-quality diets; cows produce less methane per cow on better-quality diets.

Evaluate

The 2nd most common pattern on Str / Wkn (behind Explain Curious Fact) is Plans / Recommendations, which is what we have here.

The conclusion is claiming that a certain action would achieve a certain effect, so we can mentally organize this as Plan / Goal.

Plan: give cows better-quality diets Goal: keep methane production in check

We were already told the connection between better-quality diets and methane: cows produce less methane when they receive better-quality diets.

So how could a skeptic argue that ?

That conclusion is going farther than just saying, "we'd have less methane than we would otherwise". It's actually saying,

Our normal pressure points for Plans are issues like feasibility / cooperation / backfire / significant effect.

The methane reduction we get from better quality diets might be so minimal that it's still not enough to keep methane in check.

Goal

We probably want to rule out a way the plan could backfire (maybe going on a high quality diet changes the behavior of cows in some way that results in more methane) or that suggests that the plan will have significant effect.

24.

Which one of the following, if true, adds the most support for the conclusion of the argument?

  1. Correct

    Cows given good-quality diets produce

    Why this is right

    This helps us feel better about the plan, by adding onto its potential effects. Not only would cows on better quality diets emit less methane per cow, they would also lead us to need fewer cows. There's a Breadcrumb detail in the first sentence that the population of cows grows to keep pace with demand for meat and milk. The more meat and milk we get per cow, the fewer cows we need to meet our supply goals of meat / milk. So this answer piles on an additional benefit to good-quality diets that is related to minimizing methane production from cows.

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

    68% picked this

  2. Carbon and hydrogen, the elements

    No Impact

    This is a fact about ALL types of cow feed. There's no distinction here between lower quality and higher quality diets, so it doesn't give us any way to judge whether the world in which we give them higher quality diets would be different from the world in which we give them their current diet.

    9% picked this

  3. Most farmers would be willing

    Out of Scope

    We're trying to judge the cause/effect of giving cows high-quality feed. This answer is addressing the likelihood of that action taking place. We're only trying to analyze what effects would come from that action taking place. It doesn't make any difference whether the action is likely / unlikely to occur. We're only judging, "IF it occurred, would it keep methane in check?"

    9% picked this

  4. Worldwide, more methane is produced

    No Impact

    The first sentence discusses cows being raised to produce meat and milk. There's no distinction between meat and milk. The argument doesn't care whether dairy cows or beef cows are a larger source of methane. The plan being considered is to give better-quality diets to ALL cows, so it doesn't matter what the breakdown of methane production between meat-cows and milk-cows is.

    2% picked this

  5. Per liter, methane contributes more

    No Impact

    This argument is only about whether a certain action will keep methane in check. It isn't about any other greenhouse gases and it doesn't matter whether those other gases exist / whether they are bigger or smaller sources of global warming.

    11% 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