Logical Reasoning

PT15 · S3 · Q12 Proponents of organic farming claim

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

Proponents of organic farming claim that using chemical fertilizers and pesticides in farming is harmful to local wildlife.

Conclusion (therefore)

Organic farming leaves less land available as habitat for local wildlife.

Evidence

Proponents of organic farming claim that chemical fertilizers and pesticides harm local wildlife.

More land is required to produce the same amount of food when using organic methods compared to chemical methods.

Evaluate

This argument links the increased land required for organic farming to a reduction in available wildlife habitat. The argument depends on the idea that the land used for cultivation does not serve as habitat for wildlife. In other words, the conclusion would not follow unless we assume that once land is cultivated with organic methods, it is no longer suitable as a habitat for wildlife.

Goal

We need to find an answer choice that supplies the necessary link between land being cultivated and that cultivated land not serving as wildlife habitat.

12.

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

  1. Chemical fertilizers and pesticides pose

    Too Strong

    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% picked this

  2. Wildlife living near farms where

    Irrelevant Quality

    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".

    6% picked this

  3. The only disadvantage to using

    Too Strong: only

    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.

    2% picked this

  4. The same crops are grown

    Irrelevant Comparison Too Strong: same

    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.

    8% picked this

  5. Correct

    Land cultivated by organic farming

    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.

    83% 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