Logical Reasoning

PT21 · S2 · Q11 Alan: Government subsidies have been proposed

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

Alan: Government subsidies have been proposed in Cariana to encourage farmers in Rochelle, the country’s principal agricultural region, to implement certain new farming techniques.

Conclusion (Therefore)

Even without subsidies to encourage farmers in Rochelle to implement new farming techniques, Rochelle's total agricultural output will stabilize at its present level.

Evidence

The erosion of topsoil is caused by recurring floods, which will end next year once we finish that hydroelectric dam.

Evaluate

Betty's argument is saying that

Wow, bold prediction, Bets. I don't think any farmer believes that her farm's output will be stable. What about early winters / drought / crop diseases / global warming / tornadoes / labor shortages, etc?

Just because we've fixed the flood-caused erosion problem with this new dam, that doesn't mean that everything else that can affect a farm's output is going to stay as it currently is.

Goal

Look for a Linking answer like, , or, more likely, look for a Defender answer saying that Betty is assuming that "thing X will not cause output to fluctuate".

11.

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

Building a dam across Rochelle’s
Out of Scope: other than Rochelle
The author's conclusion is only about Rochelle's output, so she doesn't need to assume anything about other areas. If we negated this and said that this dam will reduce flooding in other regions too, that wouldn't hurt the argument in any way (unless we somehow knew that reduced flooding in other regions could somehow impact agricultural impact in Rochelle).
5% picked this
The new farming techniques that
Out of Scope
Out of Scope: new techniques Out of Scope: other regions Betty's argument doesn't have anything to do with the new farming techniques. Her conclusion is saying "whether or not there are subsidies to help farmers implement the new techniques, agricultural output will stabilize because of that dam". This answer, like (A), also brings up regions other than Rochelle, which is also out of scope.
1% picked this
Correct
The current yearly output, if
Why this is right
This is brutal to understand, as written, but since the conclusion we're fighting is about whether or not agricultural output will stabilize (i.e. stay the same), we should look harder at this. This answer is addressing the possibility that there may be some land in Rochelle that is currently farm land (producing some agricultural output) but will become submerged land once the dam is built. Does Betty need to assume that any such land, which currently yields output but would yield nothing once permanently under water, would be matched by additional yearly output from some other part of Rochelle? Sure. Betty needs output to be stable, to be the same. If we lose some output because some of our farmland gets covered in dammed water, then we would have lower output than before. It wouldn't be stabilized at its present (pre-dam) levels. The negation would weaken: "Land that currently provides output but will be permanently underwater once the dam is built, will not be made up for my additional output from other land in Rochelle". This negation attacks Betty's conclusion that our current output levels will continue once the dam is built.
Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
65% picked this
The cost to the government
Out of Scope: cost
Betty's argument has nothing to do with cost. She is only making a claim about yearly agricultural output.
25% picked this
The government of Cariana has
Out of Scope: financial resources
Betty's argument has nothing to do with money. She is only making a claim about yearly agricultural output once the dam is built. It doesn't affect her argument whether the government does have the money to do subsidies and a dam, or whether the government doesn't. Her conclusion doesn't care whether the subsidies happen or don't happen.
4% 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