Logical Reasoning

PT135 · S1 · Q21 In several countries, to slow global

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

In several countries, to slow global warming, many farmers are planting trees on their land because of government incentives.

Conclusion

Government incentives to plant trees are helping to hasten (speed up) global warming.

Evidence

The incentives are to plant trees, but trees don't absorb and store CO2 as well as native grasses do.

Evaluate

This sounds like a crazy conclusion: planting trees is speeding up global warming?

It sounds like native grasses would be a better plan, but it doesn't sound like planting trees makes the problem worse.

Isn't planting trees better than nothing? They still absorb and store some CO2, so they slow down global warming?

Goal

The author isn't comparing "plant trees" to "not plant trees", because .

Instead, the author is apparently comparing "plant trees" to "plant native grasses", since .

So we want an answer that reflects the author's thinking, that this is a choice between "planting trees vs. planting native grasses", as opposed to a choice between "planting trees vs. planting nothing".

21.

The argument requires the assumption that

  1. trees not only absorb carbon

    Strengthens, not Necessary

    The author doesn't need to assume that trees emit CO2. This answer would strengthen the argument, because it would help us say that "incentives to plant trees lead to more trees emitting CO2, which hastens global warming". But this doesn't need to be true. It's possible that the author is just thinking, "Were it not for these incentives, the farmers would be growing native grasses, which absorb more CO2 than trees do. By introducing incentives to plant trees, the government is causing farmers to switch to a method that will be worse for (hasten) global warming." In short, the author doesn't need trees to emit CO2 to argue that they're hastening global warming. His argument can get by on the idea that trees store less CO2 than the alternative.

    9% picked this

  2. most farmers do not plant

    Too Strong: most / unless

    The author doesn't need to assume anything about what most farmers usually do in regards to incentives. She's only making an argument about the effects of this one specific incentive. In order for her conclusion to be true, for these incentives to be having an effect on global warming, she does have to assume that "at least some farmers planted trees because of this incentive".

    6% picked this

  3. land that has been deforested

    Out of Scope: deforested Opposite

    This answer is talking about a situation in which you have an area that used to have trees but no longer does (deforested). Once the trees are gone, will that land one day see thriving native grasses? This is way too specific a scenario for us to know how the author would judge it. If we were guessing, the fact that she's complaining about planting trees and highlighting native grasses as a superior alternative, we'd probably guess that she thinks, "Don't plant trees here! Let native grasses grow in, since they're better at capturing CO2 than trees are." In that sense, this answer is the opposite of what she'd be assuming, but more importantly we're totally speculating what she'd be assuming because the argument doesn't get this specific.

    2% picked this

  4. Correct

    some of the trees planted

    Why this is right

    On Necessary Assumption, we're wary of strongly worded answers and very receptive to weakly worded answers or ruling-out language like "not". This is lovably weak: some. When we negate some, we get none. If this answer were not true, it would mean that "none of the trees that have been planted in a place where we'd otherwise get native grasses". That would definitely weaken the author's argument. If we're comparing "planting trees vs. planting nothing" then trees are good for global warming! It's only if, as the author is assuming, we're comparing "planting trees vs. having native grasses" that trees are bad for global warming. So this answer is confirming that the author is looking at a situation where, "If we didn't have trees, we'd have native grasses", thus incentivizing trees is doing something negative for global warming.

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

    81% picked this

  5. few if any governments have

    Too Strong: few

    The author is only talking about several countries where the government is offering incentives to plant trees. Even in these countries, it would be a stretch to say "the government has no interest in promoting native grasses". But beyond that, we're only hearing about several countries (out of ~200 countries in the world). So the author doesn't need to assume that few (under 50%) of countries are interested in native grasses. If we negated this and said, "hey, author, 51% of countries are actually interested in promoting the growth of native grasses", it wouldn't be any sort of objection to her argument. She's only arguing that these three governments are offering incentives that are bad for global warming.

    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