LSAT 127 – Section 2 – Question 25

LSAT 127 - Section 2 - Question 25

December 2003

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 1:04

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT127 S2 Q25	+LR	Argument part +AP Causal Reasoning +CausR Net Effect +NetEff	A 2% 158 B 75% 166 C 2% 157 D 16% 159 E 5% 159	146 155 164	+Harder	146.61 +SubsectionMedium

Farmer: In the long run, it is counterproductive for farmers to use insecticides. Because insects’ resistance to insecticides increases with insecticide use, farmers have to use greater and greater amounts of costly insecticides to control insect pests.

Summarize Argument: Causal Explanation

Using insecticides over a long period is more harmful to farmers than helpful. As farmers use insecticides, insects gradually develop resistance, so farmers have to use larger and more costly amounts to keep controlling pests, making the practice less productive in the long run.

Identify Argument Part

The stimulus text refers to an intermediary conclusion, also called a “subsidiary conclusion” or “major premise.” The claim that “insects' resistance to insecticides increases with insecticide use," supports the stimulus text because it explains why farmers must use larger amounts of insecticides to control pests. The stimulus text supports the main conclusion by showing why it is counterproductive for farmers to use insecticides in the long run—because, over time, farmers need more expensive insecticides to achieve the same results.

It is the argument’s main conclusion, but not its only conclusion.

The stimulus text is not the argument’s main conclusion. It is a sub-conclusion that supports the main conclusion: “In the long run, it is counterproductive for farmers to use insecticides,” by explaining why long-term pesticide use is not productive.

It is a claim for which a causal explanation is provided and which itself is used as direct support for the argument’s only conclusion.

This labels the stimulus text as a sub-conclusion. The claim “insects’ resistance to insecticides increases with insecticide use” is a causal explanation (cause: insecticide; effect: greater resistance), supporting the stimulus text, which—in turn—supports the main conclusion.

It is the argument’s only conclusion.

The stimulus text is not the argument’s only conclusion. It is a sub-conclusion that supports the main conclusion: “In the long run, it is counterproductive for farmers to use insecticides,” by explaining why long-term pesticide use is unproductive.

It is a claim that is used as direct support for an intermediary conclusion, which in turn is used as direct support for the argument’s main conclusion.

The stimulus text doesn’t support an intermediary conclusion. It supports the main conclusion that “in the long run, it is counterproductive for farmers to use insecticides,” by explaining why long-term pesticide use is unproductive.

It identifies a phenomenon for which the argument’s main conclusion offers a causal explanation.

This incorrectly labels the stimulus text as context. The main conclusion does not explain the stimulus text. Instead, the stimulus text explains the main conclusion by showing why long-term pesticide use is unproductive.

LSAT 127 – Section 2 – Question 25

LSAT 127 - Section 2 - Question 25

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 127 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel