PT74-S4-Q3 (Spoiler Alert) Strengthening or Sufficient Assumption?

ahnendc-1

Hey everyone, I got this question incorrect during a timed run yesterday because I was trying to find a sufficient assumption when for a strengthen question lol.

Oh well, I'm curious as to whether you all think that this question can be definitively declared a sufficient assumption or if it is up for debate; my answer is that the question hinges on your interpretation of the modifier "mostly" in the phrase "mostly native trees and shrubs" and also whether or not a probabilistic outcome can be valid if it is most likely (I have no clue about this)..

Premises: 1) Master plan calls for all trees to be NATIVE and NOT LARGE
2) Three Rivers Nursery sells MOSTLY NATIVE TREES AND SHRUBS

Conclusion: Trees from Three Rivers Nursery is PROBABLY consistent with Master Plan

(E) Strengthens the argument because if the trees are NOT LARGE then (the only other stipulation), then we are probably in the clear

Now that I've had some more time to stare at this, I'm curious though what exactly the phrase MOSTLY NATIVE TREES AND SHRUBS means; I see two or three possible interpretations 1) Three Rivers Nursery sells only trees and shrubs, the majority of which are native to the area (explicitly leaves open the possibility that some trees - potentially the ones that were donated - are not native to the area); 2) Three Rivers Nursery sells only native trees and native shrubs as well as other items (perhaps gardening supplies?) or 3) Three Rivers Nursery sells MOSTLY NATIVE TREES (this is 70% of their business for example) and the rest (30%) is shrubs.

If we accept the 1st interpretation then there is a strong case to me that (E) is a strengthening answer choice. Because there is a possibility that the not large trees that were donated were also not native; but of course this is what a strengthen answer choice does is to increase (by any amount) the support for the conclusion. The one caveat to this is that the conclusion is probabilistic so could this actually be a valid argument so to speak? [This is the definition I opted for during the timed run (and as I mentioned before had gotten me turned around because I got lost in thinking it was a SA and had not contemplated the ramifications of a probabilistic outcome being potentially valid)].

If we accept the 2nd interpretation then my stance is that (E) is a sufficient assumption answer choice because we know the trees are NATIVE and NOT LARGE. If we accept the 3rd interpretation then (E) is also a sufficient assumption answer as well for the same reasoning.

Anyways, what are your thoughts?

Admin Note: https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-74-section-4-question-03/

ahnendc-1

help

Confidence150

I remember being stuck on this question months ago in my studies as I was confused with the part "mostly native trees and shrubs." I recall back I was confused and thought the "mostly" refers to the number of shrubs and native trees. I just revisited this question and "mostly native trees and shrubs" refers to the type of trees sold at Three Rivers Nursery and these trees were purchased and donated by the community group serves as a premise. "Mostly" is not necessarily a specific quantity here but emphasizing the types of trees.

The conclusion is the donated trees are probably consistent with the master plan. While reading this argument, I like to learn more why are the donated trees consistent with the master plan. The master plan is calling for native trees except large size such as cottonwood (premise).

I find with strengthening questions we need to focus/add more support to the relationship between the premise and conclusion. Whereas, sufficient assumption focus on the reasoning in the argument and find an answer choice to complete the argument.