I was thinking B because, yea we already know the halophytes tolerate sea water and can grow with it, but if some of them require seawater wouldn't that help neutralize the part in the stimulus that says there's a smaller yield with sea water. So yea there's a smaller yield but some of them need it to grow.
I do understand that we don't know if the halophytes we have do or don't require salt water, but I feel like that still strengthens bc what if we do? is that not a valid assumption?
or is it that since we don't know which ones we have (we just know the they can be watered with seawater) this doesn't strengthen or weaken bc we just don't know.
@Mdj I get what you're saying and where you're coming from but just because some plant species tolerate salt that doesn't mean that when we water them with sea water that their yield changes. Instead of putting river water and adding salt we just put sea-water that already has salt. If the plants required sea-water that doesn't mean that it's the seawater that is producing the smaller yield. This specific species of plant has a smaller yield than another plant and it also tolerates or if we take B to be true requires sea water. Idk if this helped but I think you're assuming that if we gave this plant freshwater the yield would change. It doesn't say that the type of water it gets changes the yield.
irrig is ONE OF the largest costs. What if harvesting is another and distributing is another. How do we know which one is largest? Perhaps irrig is the smallest of those large costs.
@jjff a reasonable assumption since the stimulus didn't talk about any other costs in which halophytes or freshwater plants differ we can assume that they're the same. It'd be more unreasonable to assume one or the other is higher with no prior evidence.
Ok so I understand how to break down what is a pro and con for each option, the find the cost and benefits, but I don't understand how to evaluate them. how do I know which benefit is the most important? is it just the number of costs/benefits? how do you add weight of those cost benefits to your analysis.
@afghahi2004983 irrigation regardless of if it is seawater or freshwater - the stim says that freshwater irrigation is more expensive than seawater irrigation, and if irrigation is proportionally one of the highest costs when it comes to growing halophytes, then this is an piece of information because it lowers the cost at a higher rate than most other factors
I figured that B if true, would show that since halophytes need salt, and they would give them salt, there will be greater crop yield since they are getting what they need, which ultimately means seawater agriculture would in fact be cost-effective, so it strengthens the argument. What is the issue with this thought process?
Because the argument focuses on cost and why seawater is cheaper/better, find an answer that strengthens that. What makes the reason "seawater is cheaper?" look better? E does. E is saying "wow, pumping water for irrigation water is SO expensive", and that makes cheap seawater agriculture look great.
What was your strategy to help dumb down the questions? I struggle with overthinking and usually can narrow the answer down to 2 different answer choices, then I choose the wrong one lol
E says it's simply ONE OF the largest costs, yet you failed to point out this glaring issue with it. Usually with wrong answers you are quick to point out its faults but with the right answer here you are blind to the problems. With the little pie chart you made, you assumed that E means pumping is the majority of the cost, yet E could also mean it's the 3rd largest contributor of cost with a measly 10%.
Both are equally arbitrary assumptions we just made. E might be the best answer, but it is overall a pretty weak answer that wasn't properly dissected here, in my humble opinion.
Let's break it down. So the prompt gives us several pieces of information:
1. "Researchers have studied the cost-effectiveness of growing halophytes—salt-tolerant plant species—for animal forage." This establishes the context.
2. Halophytes require more water than conventional crops.
3. But halophytes can be irrigated with seawater, whereas conventional crops cannot.
4. Pumping seawater into farms near sea level is much cheaper than pumping freshwater from deep wells.
From these premises, the author concludes: Thus, seawater agriculture near sea level should be cost-effective in desert regions although its yields are smaller than traditional, freshwater agriculture.
But if you're like me, that conclusion doesn't totally follow the premises. If halophytes yields are smaller, doesn't that pose a problem to its cost-effectiveness? The author tells us that seawater agriculture near sea level should be cost-effective in desert regions, but from the information that he's given us, I can't really tell why.
This is where the right answer to question comes in, answer choice E. It bolsters the relationship of support---it strengths the argument.
It says: Pumping water for irrigation is proportionally one of the largest costs involved in growing, harvesting, and distributing any forage crop for animals.
In other words, when I ask "If halophytes yields are smaller, doesn't that pose a problem to its cost-effectiveness?" answer choice E comes in and says, "No, that doesn't pose a problem, because even though the yields are small, the thing that is really costly is pumping water for irrigation. If we can avoid pumping water from wells and use saltwater instead, then that alone will make it more cost-effective."
Not that you're likely to encounter this combination again, but much of the African coast is coastal desert. Look up images of the Skeleton Coast and you'll never forget they exist.
FWIW, I think it's important to highlight that answer choice (B) refers to "some" halophytes. We don't know if that's relevant to the argument as it may, or may not be, the same subset of halophytes spoken about in the stimulus - so you can probably eliminate it just off that.
It would be helpful to know the difficulty level of these questions too, just like the "You Try" questions. A simple indicator of the difficulty level would be great. #feedback
super late to this but in case anyone else sees this, in the url it tells you where this question came from. So you can search that up! For this question the search would be "LSAT pt65-s1-q13" it'll show the question with all the answer choices so if you want, you can try it yourself before hearing the explanation. But if you scroll down a little it shows you the curve for this question and the difficulty. The difficulty for this one specifically was a 3/5!
Even though I know that these specific questions are used for lessons, I would greatly appreciate a chance to do the questions on my own before the explanation of the lesson, much like the 'You Try' sections. I understand that this is so that I fully watch the lesson, but I feel that having a chance to do the question on my own allows me the opportunity to work through my own way of learning how to do the question, and even sometimes discover that I am doing the question the same way that the video/lesson is going to explain how to do, which personally allows me to learn more from the specific question. Let me know what your thoughts are or if anyone else agrees.
One way to approach these lessons is to use the Lesson Note box by pulling it right next to the video. You can then break down the question in your own words, figure out the assumptions, possible answers, trap answers, etc. Then you can compare your notes and your reasoning to JY's explanation. It's actually a lot more helpful and at times more efficient than the 'You Try' option, since you're not under timed conditions and you're unlimited in your analysis. It's up to you how much you want to break down the argument or use the resources available to you. Hope this helps!
if I didn't understand what irrigation means, how can I translate it, since another sentence uses it with a different meaning that could be understood as"switched"?
#feedback it would be helpful if you print the answer choices where you discuss them in the text. Otherwise where are we supposed to see them? We'd have to fast forward and rewind the video because the video doesn't display all the answer choices simultaneously.
agreed. one of the biggest downfalls of these "lessons". They're great but then watching a video we can't workout or follow in order kind of adds to the study fatigue because we aren't sure of what we are looking at and up against. #feedback
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
40 comments
I am super confused on this question. the desert part in the conclusion is throwing me off. someone please explain this to me
To dumb this down, E is the only answer that really addresses the cost-effectiveness
I was thinking B because, yea we already know the halophytes tolerate sea water and can grow with it, but if some of them require seawater wouldn't that help neutralize the part in the stimulus that says there's a smaller yield with sea water. So yea there's a smaller yield but some of them need it to grow.
I do understand that we don't know if the halophytes we have do or don't require salt water, but I feel like that still strengthens bc what if we do? is that not a valid assumption?
or is it that since we don't know which ones we have (we just know the they can be watered with seawater) this doesn't strengthen or weaken bc we just don't know.
@Mdj I get what you're saying and where you're coming from but just because some plant species tolerate salt that doesn't mean that when we water them with sea water that their yield changes. Instead of putting river water and adding salt we just put sea-water that already has salt. If the plants required sea-water that doesn't mean that it's the seawater that is producing the smaller yield. This specific species of plant has a smaller yield than another plant and it also tolerates or if we take B to be true requires sea water. Idk if this helped but I think you're assuming that if we gave this plant freshwater the yield would change. It doesn't say that the type of water it gets changes the yield.
I feel like D has the potential to weaken the argument for sure.
irrig is ONE OF the largest costs. What if harvesting is another and distributing is another. How do we know which one is largest? Perhaps irrig is the smallest of those large costs.
@jjff a reasonable assumption since the stimulus didn't talk about any other costs in which halophytes or freshwater plants differ we can assume that they're the same. It'd be more unreasonable to assume one or the other is higher with no prior evidence.
Ok so I understand how to break down what is a pro and con for each option, the find the cost and benefits, but I don't understand how to evaluate them. how do I know which benefit is the most important? is it just the number of costs/benefits? how do you add weight of those cost benefits to your analysis.
#help
for E it just says irrigation, it doesn't specify seawater or freshwater irrigation, did I miss something?
@afghahi2004983 irrigation regardless of if it is seawater or freshwater - the stim says that freshwater irrigation is more expensive than seawater irrigation, and if irrigation is proportionally one of the highest costs when it comes to growing halophytes, then this is an piece of information because it lowers the cost at a higher rate than most other factors
I figured that B if true, would show that since halophytes need salt, and they would give them salt, there will be greater crop yield since they are getting what they need, which ultimately means seawater agriculture would in fact be cost-effective, so it strengthens the argument. What is the issue with this thought process?
@afghahi2004983 you made an extra assumption jumping from needing salt = extra yield, which we don't know to be true
This hurt my brian
Because the argument focuses on cost and why seawater is cheaper/better, find an answer that strengthens that. What makes the reason "seawater is cheaper?" look better? E does. E is saying "wow, pumping water for irrigation water is SO expensive", and that makes cheap seawater agriculture look great.
Dumbing down the question and not overthinking has helped me get a lot of these questions right. But idk if this is a good or bad
What was your strategy to help dumb down the questions? I struggle with overthinking and usually can narrow the answer down to 2 different answer choices, then I choose the wrong one lol
E says it's simply ONE OF the largest costs, yet you failed to point out this glaring issue with it. Usually with wrong answers you are quick to point out its faults but with the right answer here you are blind to the problems. With the little pie chart you made, you assumed that E means pumping is the majority of the cost, yet E could also mean it's the 3rd largest contributor of cost with a measly 10%.
Both are equally arbitrary assumptions we just made. E might be the best answer, but it is overall a pretty weak answer that wasn't properly dissected here, in my humble opinion.
thank you for this perspective I chose it as the answer but you really broadened my understanding of it
yeah if this disection could be revised it would be appreciated
#feedback
brain explosion incoming
Use this as a "this is the most confusing stimulus I've seen so far" button
Econ major coming in clutch
Real! I eat these questions up!
I wish lol cost benefit analysis always trips me up
this question is so confusing to me. especially the conclusion
still kind of confused on this; can someone explain this to me in their own terms?
I'll try!
Let's break it down. So the prompt gives us several pieces of information:
1. "Researchers have studied the cost-effectiveness of growing halophytes—salt-tolerant plant species—for animal forage." This establishes the context.
2. Halophytes require more water than conventional crops.
3. But halophytes can be irrigated with seawater, whereas conventional crops cannot.
4. Pumping seawater into farms near sea level is much cheaper than pumping freshwater from deep wells.
From these premises, the author concludes: Thus, seawater agriculture near sea level should be cost-effective in desert regions although its yields are smaller than traditional, freshwater agriculture.
But if you're like me, that conclusion doesn't totally follow the premises. If halophytes yields are smaller, doesn't that pose a problem to its cost-effectiveness? The author tells us that seawater agriculture near sea level should be cost-effective in desert regions, but from the information that he's given us, I can't really tell why.
This is where the right answer to question comes in, answer choice E. It bolsters the relationship of support---it strengths the argument.
It says: Pumping water for irrigation is proportionally one of the largest costs involved in growing, harvesting, and distributing any forage crop for animals.
In other words, when I ask "If halophytes yields are smaller, doesn't that pose a problem to its cost-effectiveness?" answer choice E comes in and says, "No, that doesn't pose a problem, because even though the yields are small, the thing that is really costly is pumping water for irrigation. If we can avoid pumping water from wells and use saltwater instead, then that alone will make it more cost-effective."
Hopefully this helps!
Right? I'm still stuck on "seawater ... near sea-level ... in desert regions"
Not that you're likely to encounter this combination again, but much of the African coast is coastal desert. Look up images of the Skeleton Coast and you'll never forget they exist.
that's so cool; I just looked at the pictures. Thank you for sharing!
FWIW, I think it's important to highlight that answer choice (B) refers to "some" halophytes. We don't know if that's relevant to the argument as it may, or may not be, the same subset of halophytes spoken about in the stimulus - so you can probably eliminate it just off that.
It would be helpful to know the difficulty level of these questions too, just like the "You Try" questions. A simple indicator of the difficulty level would be great. #feedback
super late to this but in case anyone else sees this, in the url it tells you where this question came from. So you can search that up! For this question the search would be "LSAT pt65-s1-q13" it'll show the question with all the answer choices so if you want, you can try it yourself before hearing the explanation. But if you scroll down a little it shows you the curve for this question and the difficulty. The difficulty for this one specifically was a 3/5!
Even though I know that these specific questions are used for lessons, I would greatly appreciate a chance to do the questions on my own before the explanation of the lesson, much like the 'You Try' sections. I understand that this is so that I fully watch the lesson, but I feel that having a chance to do the question on my own allows me the opportunity to work through my own way of learning how to do the question, and even sometimes discover that I am doing the question the same way that the video/lesson is going to explain how to do, which personally allows me to learn more from the specific question. Let me know what your thoughts are or if anyone else agrees.
One way to approach these lessons is to use the Lesson Note box by pulling it right next to the video. You can then break down the question in your own words, figure out the assumptions, possible answers, trap answers, etc. Then you can compare your notes and your reasoning to JY's explanation. It's actually a lot more helpful and at times more efficient than the 'You Try' option, since you're not under timed conditions and you're unlimited in your analysis. It's up to you how much you want to break down the argument or use the resources available to you. Hope this helps!
if I didn't understand what irrigation means, how can I translate it, since another sentence uses it with a different meaning that could be understood as"switched"?
#help Added by Admin
#feedback it would be helpful if you print the answer choices where you discuss them in the text. Otherwise where are we supposed to see them? We'd have to fast forward and rewind the video because the video doesn't display all the answer choices simultaneously.
Hi there,
Thank you for your feedback! We are currently working on this, and we will let you know once the answer choices have been added to the text.
Please let me know if you have further questions or concerns. I'm happy to help!
agreed. one of the biggest downfalls of these "lessons". They're great but then watching a video we can't workout or follow in order kind of adds to the study fatigue because we aren't sure of what we are looking at and up against. #feedback
Thanks for the feedback. We're updating the written explanations precisely to address this issue.