Logical Reasoning

PT157 · S2 · Q3 Although there are immediate

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

Although there are immediate short-term gains in crop yield from a single application of certain hydrocarbon-based pesticides to fields on which they have not been previously used, studies have shown clearly that long-term use gradually depresses crop yield from this initially elevated level.

Background Claims

A certain pesticide provides immediate short-term gains in crop yield, but long term use gradually decreases crop yield from this uptick.

Evaluate

The pivot word Although sets up tension between our two claims.

Usually when Most Supported stimuli put some ideas in pivot-tension, the correct answer addresses that tension.

What is a safe takeaway if something provides short term gains, but long term use negates those gains?

Goal

Let's look for something like, ? Overall we want the most provable answer, but it should be reconciling those two claims.

3.

Which one of the following would most logically complete the argument above?

  1. is uneconomic

    Too Speculative

    Short term use of the pesticide seems economically beneficial! We get immediate short-term gains in crop yield. If we keep using it long term, it depresses crop yield from the initially elevated level, but we do not know by how much. The yield could still remain higher than it would be without pesticides, in which case the pesticides would still provide an economic benefit, just a decreasing one.

    6% picked this

  2. damages the environment

    Out of Scope

    The argument discusses crop yield, not environmental damage. Nothing in the stimulus addresses the environmental impact of hydrocarbon-based pesticides.

    8% picked this

  3. will eventually make pest problems

    Too Speculative

    Too Strong: will Out of Scope (pest problems) The stimulus never discusses pest problems at all, just crop yields. We hear about gradually declining yields, not catastrophic pest-management failure.

    3% picked this

  4. is probably not occurring in

    Out of Scope

    The argument provides no information whatsoever about manufacturers' instructions. We do not know what those instructions recommend regarding application frequency, dosage, or duration.

    1% picked this

  5. Correct

    gives financial returns that diminish

    Why this is right

    Sure, this is akin to our prediction that "you should probably just use these pesticides for a little bit", after all, the benefit of them disappears over time. "Financial returns" feels a little out of scope, but our common sense knows that more crops you harvest, the more financial return you get as a farmer. So we could read (E) as saying that these pesticides "give a boost to crop yields that diminishes over time".

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

    82% 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