Logical Reasoning

PT148 · S3 · Q20 Agricultural scientist: Wild apples

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

Agricultural scientist: Wild apples are considerably smaller than cultivated apples found in supermarkets.

Conclusion (So)

Apples were probably not cultivated in this region 5,000 years ago.

Evidence

The only remains of apples found are from apples that are the same size as the wild apples native to this region.

Cultivated apples found in supermarkets are much bigger than these.

Evaluate

Given this evidence, how can we argue that apples were cultivated in this region 5,000 years ago? Can we say the remains of apples that we found were cultivated apples?

The author will respond,

Why does that mean they couldn't be cultivated? Do we know that cultivated apples would have been bigger?

No, we just know that supermarket apples are bigger. But maybe that's just because the grocers who stock supermarkets grab the biggest apples they can find to put on the store shelves. We don't know if cultivated apples are all that big.

The author is failing to consider that some cultivated apples could be as small as the wild apples of this region. She's failing to consider that supermarket apples are an unrepresentative sample of cultivated apples. Perhaps supermarket apples are much larger on average than cultivated apples are on average.

Goal

Look for a way that we can argue that the apple remains that were found were from cultivated apples. We have to "make an excuse" for why they're smaller than supermarket apples, or we can just pick any answer that names the author's reasoning move: .

20.

The agricultural scientist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

  1. fails to consider that even

    Not an Objection

    When we see fails to consider / overlooks possibility of X, we can just ask ourselves, "If X is true, would it weaken?" When the answer additionally has a 2-part rhythm, "fails to consider that even if Y, it may be not X", then the Y should match the evidence and the X should match the conclusion. Even if your Premise is true, it may be that your Conclusion is false. This answer is hopelessly jacked up in that regard. It says, "Even if apples weren't cultivated in this region 5,000 years ago", so it's starting by saying, Even if your Conclusion is true, this unmentioned idea may be false.

    6% picked this

  2. Correct

    fails to consider that plants

    Why this is right

    When we see fails to consider / overlooks possibility of X, we can just ask ourselves, "If X is true, would it weaken?" Does it hurt the argument if we say that when you first cultivate plants they tend to look like the wild version? Only after a long time do cultivated plants stop resembling their wild counterparts? Sure! That allows us to make an excuse for why the remains of these ancient "cultivated" apples make it seem like the ancient apple was the size of the wild one. If they had just started cultivating apples 5,000 years ago, the first few generations of apples will still resemble the wild ones, since the first seeds planted are from wild ones. The first few generations of domesticated dogs still looked like wolves. It's only after many, many rounds of selective breeding that you change the appearance of something through domestication. The fact that these ancient apples were wild-size doesn't necessarily mean that the apples were wild; they could have been the early stages of cultivating apples, when the apples would still resemble wild apples.

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

    70% picked this

  3. takes for granted that all

    Too Strong

    When we see takes for granted / presumes that X, we can just ask ourselves, "Was this author assuming X? Does X need to be true for the argument to work? If we negated X, would it weaken?" We would definitely not say the author needed to believe that 100% of apples are either wild size or supermarket size. If we negated this and said, "There is one apple I once had that was about halfway in between wild size and supermarket size", that wouldn't hurt the argument in the slightest.

    15% picked this

  4. employs a premise that is

    Not Self-Contradiction

    This refers to one of the 10 Famous Flaws, Self-Contradiction. Like Circular and Equivocation, Self-Contradiction is almost never correct. The language that "premises are incompatible" or "inconsistent" means they contradict each other. As you can imagine that almost never happens because it would sound really weird. The premise about finding remains of apples that are the same size as wild apples would be contradicted if the conclusion said, "Therefore, the remains of apples we found suggest that the apples were not the size of wild apples".

    4% picked this

  5. uses a claim that presupposes

    Not Circular

    This refers to one of the 10 Famous Flaws, Circular reasoning. Like Self-Contradiction and Equivocation, Circular is almost never correct. In a circular argument, the evidence restates the conclusion or the evidence says something that requires that you already believe the conclusion. Neither of those things happens here.

    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