Logical Reasoning

PT159 · S1 · Q2 Some have argued that using food crops

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

Implied Rebuttal Conclusion (so)

It could be okay to use food crops to produce fuel.

Intermediate Conclusion (so)

Diverting food to fuel isn't a radical break with traditional practices.

Evidence

We currently divert food crops to feed livestock.

Evaluate

The big 3 most common moves on Method are Analogies, Faulty Implications, and Alternatives.

This argument seems to involve an Analogy. The author is saying that diverting food crops to produce fuel is analogous to diverting food crops to feed livestock.

It also involves the idea of a Counterexample. The opposing claim is that diverting food crops for fuel would be an unprecedented move, and the author is trying to argue,

Goal

Let's pick any answer that is descriptively true. It will probably comment on the analogy or counterexample.

2.

Some have argued that using food crops to produce fuel represents an unprecedented attack on the food supply. It seems immoral to divert crops from the food supply while there is a need for food. But we currently divert crops from the human food supply to feed livestock. So the diversion of food to fuel is not actually a radical break with traditional practices. The argument proceeds by

  1. arguing that the bad consequences

    Bad Evidence Match

    Nothing in the evidence mentions the positive consequences of diverting food crops to produce fuel.

    1% picked this

  2. countering the charge that a

    Bad Evidence Match

    There isn't any change that a practice (diverting food crops to produce fuel) has a bad consequence. The charge is simply that it's immoral to use food that way, when there are people who need food to eat. So naturally, the author never counters a charge that was never made.

    4% picked this

  3. Correct

    rebutting a charge that a

    Why this is right

    This captures the counterexample and analogy components we anticipated. The charge was that this proposal was an "unprecedented attack". That qualifies as saying that the proposal is radical. And the author undermines that view by saying "it's not a radical break from tradition", since we analogously divert food crops to feed livestock.

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

    91% picked this

  4. rejecting the charge that a

    Bad Evidence Match

    The author's rebuttal is more about countering the idea that this is unprecedented / radical. She doesn't weigh in on whether it's immoral (it might also be immoral to divert food crops to feed livestock). Nothing in her evidence addresses the morality of the proposal. The evidence only addresses how we currently do something similar.

    3% picked this

  5. supporting a moral objection to

    Bad Evidence / Conclusion Match

    The author never supports the idea that this is immoral, and she's trying to show that this new proposal is similar to other practices, not different.

    1% 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