PTB.S1.Q23: The author spells out an argument to the effect that deep tillage is bad. On this basis, the author infers the conclusion that farmers should not do tillage at all.
There is a gap in this argument: Why would the fact that DEEP tillage is bad suffice to establish the recommendation that ALL tillage should be avoided? Could there not also be other types of tillage that still might be acceptable?
(C) notices this gap and blocks this possible alternative. That is, (C) establishes that the badness of DEEP tillage indeed suffices to establish the recommendation that ALL tillage should be avoided. (C) does this by establishing that there is no non-deep tillage method apt to serve as an alternative to the deep tilling option.
To figure out questions like these, get at the notion of argumentative scope. Ask yourself: Are the premises and the conclusion of this argument really talking about the same thing? Or is there some subtle shift in the types of thing that the author is discussing in their argument? Oftentimes, questions like this will involve these sorts of subtle shifts in topic that you barely notice when reading a stimulus for the first time (e.g. tillage vs. deep tillage, news paper stories vs. important new paper stories, sounds that a machine usually makes vs. sounds that a machine usually makes when you insert a dollar bill). This sort of pattern occurs over and over again and is one of several techniques that the LSAT regularly uses to confuse test takers.
1
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
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!
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.
1 comments
PTB.S1.Q23: The author spells out an argument to the effect that deep tillage is bad. On this basis, the author infers the conclusion that farmers should not do tillage at all.
There is a gap in this argument: Why would the fact that DEEP tillage is bad suffice to establish the recommendation that ALL tillage should be avoided? Could there not also be other types of tillage that still might be acceptable?
(C) notices this gap and blocks this possible alternative. That is, (C) establishes that the badness of DEEP tillage indeed suffices to establish the recommendation that ALL tillage should be avoided. (C) does this by establishing that there is no non-deep tillage method apt to serve as an alternative to the deep tilling option.
To figure out questions like these, get at the notion of argumentative scope. Ask yourself: Are the premises and the conclusion of this argument really talking about the same thing? Or is there some subtle shift in the types of thing that the author is discussing in their argument? Oftentimes, questions like this will involve these sorts of subtle shifts in topic that you barely notice when reading a stimulus for the first time (e.g. tillage vs. deep tillage, news paper stories vs. important new paper stories, sounds that a machine usually makes vs. sounds that a machine usually makes when you insert a dollar bill). This sort of pattern occurs over and over again and is one of several techniques that the LSAT regularly uses to confuse test takers.