Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT15 S3 Q12 Explanation

Proponents of organic farming claim

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsNecessary Assumption

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

Proponents of organic farming claim that using chemical fertilizers and pesticides in farming is harmful to local wildlife. To produce the same amount of food, however, more land must be under cultivation when organic farming techniques are used than when less land available as habitat for local wildlife.

What this question is testing

Necessary Assumption

Your task

Find the assumption the argument requires in order for its conclusion to hold.

Common trap

Answers that would help the argument but aren't strictly required (sufficient, not necessary).

Winning move

Negate each choice — the right one breaks the argument when negated.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
12.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the author’s

Answer choices

  1. Too Strong1% picked this

    Chemical fertilizers and pesticides pose no health threat

    Too Strong: no Out of Scope: health threat The argument is about the amount of land available for habitat rather than the health impact of chemicals.

  2. Irrelevant Quality4% picked this

    Wildlife living near farms where chemicals are used will not ingest any food or water

    This has the lovable Defender "not", but if negate it, it doesn't weaken. If wildlife ARE ingesting food or water containing those chemicals, that doesn't give us any way to say that "converting land to organic farming isn't reducing habitat".

  3. Too Strong: only2% picked this

    The only disadvantage to using chemicals in farming is their potential

    This is playing the time honored trap answer trick of taking "the only thing mentioned" and acting like it's "the only thing". The only downside of chemicals that was mentioned was harm to wildlife but that doesn't mean the author is assuming that harm to wildlife is the only downside to chemicals.

  4. Irrelevant Comparison Too Strong: same10% picked this

    The same crops are grown on organic farms as on farms where

    It doesn't matter whether organic farms grow the same crops or different ones. The argument is only about whether there is a net loss in habitat for wildlife.

  5. Correct84% picked this

    Land cultivated by organic farming methods no longer constitutes a habitat

    Why this is right

    If we negate this, it's saying "land we use for organic farming STILL constitutes a habitat for wildlife". That weakens the argument by directly attacking the conclusion. Converting land to organic farming doesn't reduce wildlife habitat, if organic farming land is still wildlife habitat.

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

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