Reading Comprehension

PT7 · S3 · P3 · Q17 Crop Bacteria

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension 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

Cultivation of a single crop on a given tract of land leads eventually to decreased yields.

Topic

Using bacteria — including genetically altered ones — to suppress plant pathogens and improve crop yields.

Framework

Present Debate. The author lays out the technique, walks through the genetic-alteration extension, and presents proponents' and opponents' arguments before closing with a hopeful note.

Main Point

Beneficial soil bacteria like Pseudomonas fluorescents already improve crop yields by suppressing pathogens; proponents argue genetic alteration of bacteria could extend these benefits, while opponents worry about deliberate release. Proponents counter that specific alterations (like removing the frost-damage gene from P. syringae) make the altered strain safer than the original.

P1: Beneficial bacteria suppress pathogens

Continuous cultivation increases harmful soil bacteria; rotation breaks this. Even without rotation, soils become "suppressive" — partly because bacteria like P. fluorescents outcompete the pathogens. Treating wheat (and sugar beets, cotton, potatoes) seeds with these bacteria increases yields.

P2: Genetic alteration as the next step

Proponents suggest genetically altered bacteria could be even more useful — for example, releasing nonpathogenic P. syringae to crowd out the frost-damage variety. Opponents object to large-scale releases of altered bacteria. Proponents counter that the alteration is just removing the gene for frost damage, making the strain safer than the original.

P3: Even more ambitious uses

Some proponents go further: combining traits from different bacteria (e.g., transferring insecticidal-compound genes into corn-root pseudomonads). Such bacteria are hard to develop and may struggle in natural soil. Still, proponents see excellent prospects, and many hope risk-assessment efforts will satisfy opponents and let research go forward.

17.

It can be inferred from the author’s discussion of Pseudomonas fluorescens bacteria that which one of the following would be true of crops impervious to parasitical organisms?

  1. Pseudomonas fluorescens bacteria would be

    Too Strong: absent

    We know there's more Pseudomonas fluorescens in suppressive soil than non-suppressive soil. But that doesn't give us any info about where it's totally absent. For all we know, Pf is EVERYWHERE!

    7% picked this

  2. They would crowd out and

    Too Strong

    Too Strong: eventually exclude ; Outside target: crowd out The degree of "eventually exclude" is suspicious and crowding out is something that's only discussed in P2. Moreover, it's discussed in terms of one bacteria crowding out another, not crops crowding each other out.

    8% picked this

  3. Correct

    Their yield would not be

    Why this is right

    The weaker degree of this answer (would not likely) tips us off to the fact that it could be a strong contender. In terms of its actual content, we're told that adding PF improves the yields of certain crops. And we're told that it presumably does so by reducing the presence of phytopathogens, which are a type of parasitic organism that hurt crops. Thus, it stands to reason that if a crop was impervious to parasitic organisms, it wouldn't be hurt by the phytopathogens, so adding PF wouldn't improve the yield.

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

    59% picked this

  4. They would mature more quickly

    Unsupported Comparison: mature more quickly

    We're not told anything about the timeline of crop maturation.

    6% picked this

  5. Levels of phytopathogenic bacteria in

    Unsupported Comparison: would be higher

    If a crop is impervious to phytopathogens, why would there be more phytopathogens in the soil surrounding their roots? There's no evidence for this comparison. All we know is there's more Pf in suppressive soil than non-suppressive soil. If you were tempted by this answer because you thought "if the plant itself is impervious, maybe the phytopathogens are getting left down in the soil," that's too much of a reach.

    20% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

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