LSAT 158 – Section 4 – Question 24

LSAT 158 - Section 4 - Question 24

May 2020

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:34

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
PT158 S4 Q24
+LR
Weaken +Weak
Causal Reasoning +CausR
Link Assumption +LinkA
A
9%
154
B
14%
156
C
8%
155
D
60%
164
E
8%
160
147
157
166
 +Harder 148.293 +SubsectionMedium

Consumer advocate: Some agricultural crops are now being genetically engineered to produce important pharmaceuticals. However, this development raises the possibility that the drugs will end up in the general food supply, since if pollen from a drug-producing crop drifts into a nearby field in which an ordinary, non-drug-producing crop of the same species is being grown, the pollen could fertilize that crop and turn it into a drug-producing crop as well.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
A Consumer Advocate hypothesizes that genetically engineered foods produced for pharmaceuticals raise the likelihood that these drugs will end up in the general food supply. This is because drug-producing plants can pollinate nearby non-drug-producing plants, thus converting them into drug-producers.

Notable Assumptions
The Consumer Advocate assumes that non-drug-producing plants that are converted will not be removed from the food supply.
The author also assumes that the genetic areas impacted by the drug-producing plants are parts that are harvested and eventually enter the food supply

A
As far as scientists know, none of the pharmaceuticals produced by genetically engineered crops would present any danger to public health if they were present in the general food supply.
The argument is not concerned with the “danger” of these drugs in the food supply. It is only concerned with the increased *likelihood* of the drugs in the food supply
B
If pollen from a genetically engineered crop is prevented from drifting into fields in which ordinary crops of the same species are being grown, then there is no risk of the pollen fertilizing the latter crops.
While this provides a way to limit the chance of cross-pollination, it does not say whether this will *actually* happen. It is phrased as if-then, not something that will definitely occur.
C
The genetically engineered crops that produce pharmaceuticals are not among the crop species that comprise the largest portions of the general food supply.
Just because the drug-producing plants are not among the largest portions of the general food supply, it does not weaken the argument that they are more likely to enter the food supply. Maybe that likelihood is not as high, but it is still there.
D
In crops genetically engineered to produce pharmaceuticals, the drugs are not present in any part of the plant used for food in ordinary crops of the same species.
This suggests that if cross-pollination were to occur, the harvested parts of the plants would not contain the pharmaceuticals and thereby not enter the food supply.
E
If pollen from a drug-producing crop turned an ordinary crop of the same species into a drug-producing crop, it would be possible for scientists to identify the latter crop.
Although this suggests that crops altered by cross-pollination could be identified, it does not give enough evidence to assume that this will decrease the likelihood of drugs entering the food supply.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 158 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply