Logical Reasoning

PT152 · S1 · Q21 Farmer: Farming with artificial fertilizers

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: Farming with artificial fertilizers, though more damaging to the environment than organic farming, allows more food to be grown on the same amount of land.

Conclusion

In order to produce enough food for the growing population, we can't let organic farming spread any further.

Evidence

If all farmers were to practice organic farming, there wouldn't be enough food for Earth's growing population. Farming with inorganic fertilizers (though more damaging to the environment) allows more food to be grown on the same amount of land.

Evaluate

We need a way to argue that .

My first thought is that this author said that if organic farming reached 100% of farming, we wouldn't have enough food. But what % of farming is organic farming currently at?

If it's only at 8% of farming, then would letting organic farming spread to 15% of farming actually ruin our ability to feed the growing population?

My second thought is that they teased a downside of inorganic farming (more damaging to the environment). So is it possible that if we went with inorganic farming, it would destroy enough of the environment that we would end up producing even less food than with organic?

We were told that inorganic makes more food than organic, given an equal plot of land (let's say 100 acres). But if inorganic farming destroys the usable land, then who's to say if we'd still come out on top. What if inorganic farming destroys 20 acres of our 100. Would doing inorganic farming on the remaining 80 acres of undamaged land get us more food than if we had kept doing organic farming on the 100 acres?

Goal

Look for an answer pointing out the food-limiting downsides of inorganic farming (farming w/ artificial fertilizers), or look for an answer pointing out the gap between vs. the conclusion saying .

21.

The reasoning in the farmer's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?

  1. It takes for granted that

    Out of Scope: only slightly

    We can't comment on the degree to which inorganic farming is more damaging. The author just said "more damaging", so we have no grounds to think she's assuming "only slightly more". If we negated this assumption and said "inorganic farming is more than just slightly more damaging", it wouldn't be a big objection to her argument. Without knowing in what way it's damaging, we can't turn "it's significantly more damaging to the environment" into a relevant objection about whether inorganic farming would result in a diminution of our food production capabilities.

    2% picked this

  2. Correct

    It overlooks the possibility that

    Why this is right

    This is slyly speaking to the gap between "can't spread any further" in the conclusion and the "can't have ALL farmers practicing organic" from the evidence. Does it hurt the argument if we say, "Hey, author, even if organic farming continues to spread, many farmers will choose not to go with organic farming"? Yes, because the author's argument about sufficient food production is relying on this contrapositive: all farms were organic ? not enough food Thus, she should be saying enough food ? don't let all farms be organic Instead, she said enough food ? don't let org farming spread So she's on the hook for assuming that if we let organic farming spread, then we'll get to a point of all farms being organic. And this answer presents an objection to that assumption. "No we won't -- we can let organic farming spread, and since many farmers will never adopt it, we won't get to the point of all farms being organic."

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

    50% picked this

  3. It fails to consider the

    No Impact

    Would it be an objection to say to the author, "Hey, author, at some points in human history, we produced enough food for Earth's population organically (w/o artificial fertilizers)"? No, because the author would just say, "Sure. But Earth has a growing population. It was possible back then for organic farming to feed us all, but not anymore with today's population size."

    5% picked this

  4. It overlooks the possibility that

    Bad Objection

    If all farmers adopted the practice of organic farming, the consequence that would follow is "unable to produce enough food for Earth's growing population". Can we hurt the author's argument by saying, "Hey, author, even if some farmers don't adopt the practice of organic farming, we still might be unable to produce enough food"? No, because the author was never guaranteeing us that we can produce enough food, as long as some farmers avoid organic farming. The conclusion is saying, "if we don't stop organic farming, we won't produce enough food". It doesn't say, "if we do stop organic farming, we will produce enough food", which is the sort of conclusion that would be hurt by this answer choice's objection.

    29% picked this

  5. It takes for granted that

    Out of Scope: human health

    The conclusion isn't a broad fuzzy sense of "should we / shouldn't we be engaging in organic farming". This conclusion is narrowly drawn to the topic of sufficient food supply. All we're analyzing is whether stopping organic farming where it is would be necessary to produce sufficient food for the world. Yes, there are complex tradeoffs in doing lots of inorganic farming (environmental damage and maybe, as this answer is saying, some form of harm to human health). But the author's conclusion isn't a holistic assessment. It's just about food supply.

    13% 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