Logical Reasoning

PT137 · S4 · Q21 Farmer: My neighbor claims

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

Farmer: My neighbor claims that my pesticides are spreading to her farm in runoff water, but she is wrong.

Conclusion

She is wrong. rephrase: My pesticides are not spreading to her farm in runoff water

Evidence

I use only organic pesticides, which are seemingly harmless to people or domestic animals.

Also, I am careful to avoid spraying on my neighbor's land.

Evaluate

When we're doing Flaw and we see that an author is rebutting some position or person, there are three main tendencies: 1. Ad Hominem - the author rejects someone's position because that person has some vested interest / ulterior motive, or because they have conflicting past behavior.

2. Unproven vs. Proven False - the author points out that someone has failed to prove X or made an unsuccessful argument for X, and then concludes that X is therefore false.

3. Irrelevant Response - the author responds to a different position (Straw Man) or just fails to address what the first person was talking about.

Here, we've got ourselves a #3. The issue being debated is whether or not pesticides are spreading to a neighboring farm, via runoff water.

The fact that this farmer uses organic pesticides has absolutely no bearing on whether or not pesticides are spreading.

And the fact that the farmer avoids spraying pesticides (like from a hose) onto the neighbor's land has no bearing. The neighbor was never saying, "Hey, you sprayed your pesticides on my land." She was saying, .

Some students aren't familiar with the concept of run-off, but picture washing a car on a hilly driveway. You're only spraying your car, but the soapy water runs down the driveway, into the gutter, and then usually is continues to trickle down the gutter until it hits a sewer drain.

Goal

Find an answer saying that neither of the author's responses were at all relevant to the question of whether or not runoff water from Farmer X's farm is trickling over to his neighbor's farm.

21.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a reasoning flaw in the farmer's argument?

  1. It treats lack of evidence

    Bad Conclusion Match

    According to this answer the author goes from saying "there is no evidence that organic pesticides harm people or animals" to concluding "thus, organic pesticides cannot harm people or animals". But the conclusion is nothing like that. The conclusion is, "My pesticides are not spreading to my neighbor's farm via runoff water." (This answer describes an Unproven vs. Proven False move)

    8% picked this

  2. It presumes, without providing justification,

    Too Strong: usually Not Our Objection

    This author is only assuming that his careful avoidance of spraying on his neighbor's land is resulting in actually avoiding spraying on his neighbor's land. He doesn't need to assume that in most cases (usually), being careful to avoid X results in avoiding X. Moreover, our objection to the premise about spraying on his neighbor's land shouldn't be, "Maybe, even though you're trying to avoid spraying on her land, you still actually are!" It should be, "What the heck does spraying on her land have to do with her complaint? She didn't accuse you of spraying pesticides on her land. She said the runoff water from your farm leaks over onto her farm."

    18% picked this

  3. Correct

    It does not address the

    Why this is right

    This answer is just pointing out the simple complaint that the author said a bunch of stuff in rebuttal to the original claim that pesticides are spreading via runoff water, but nothing the author said related to that at all. Saying that the pesticides are harmless organic ones, and saying that "I don't deliberately spray onto your land", are not in any way addressing whether or not these pesticides (organic or not) are spreading onto her land via runoff.

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

    69% picked this

  4. It fails to provide an

    Never a Valid Objection

    It's never the case that we will criticize someone for "failing to find the real killer". In a criminal trial, if you are innocent, it suffices for you to prove you are innocent by showing it couldn't have been you who committed the crime (you have a rock solid alibi, for example). We don't say, "Sorry, Charlie. Yes, you've convinced us that you were in another country the night of this murder and so you couldn't possibly have strangled Pete, but ... you have failed to solve the crime for us, so you're still guilty." In order to prove, "Bob did not do X", you don't have to establish who did do X. You can just prove that Bob didn't.

    3% picked this

  5. It ignores the possibility that

    Irrelevant Objection

    Since this answer starts with fails to consider / ignores possibility, we can ask ourselves whether it would weaken the argument to say, "Hey, author -- pesticides might have dangerous effects other than harming people or domestic animals". It would not, though, since the potential danger of pesticides is completely irrelevant to this argument. We're only supposed to be assessing whether or not pesticides are leaking over onto the neighbor's farm via runoff water. We're not trying to judge whether it's intentional or accidental / whether it's harmful or harmless. Just whether or not it's happening.

    3% 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