PTB.S1.Q23 - Reasoning Behind the Correct Answer

ZekeGiordano

If someone could explain their reasoning behind how they reached the correct answer to this question it would be much appreciated.

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

maco4538

A theme that will be prevalent in the LSAT is this idea of a false dichotomy. So, the stimulus presents a comparison between deep tilling and no-tilling and then concludes that deep tilling should be abandon and replaced with no-tilling methods. The necessary assumption is that if we abandon deep tilling then we must use the no-tilling methods.

We can see why this is a flawed argument by analogy. By comparison, you are more likely to drown in the deep end of a pool than sitting outside of the pool. Therefore, we should restrict swimming in the deep end of the pool, and you can only sit by the pool. This kind of argument overlooks the fact that we have other options like swimming in the shallow end or wearing a floatation device.

Therefore, the necessary assumption to PTB.S1.Q23 is that there is a dichotomy: either deep till or no till.

C says Tilling by any method other than deep tillage is not a viable option. This must be true for the argument to work.

We can test its correctness via negation.

C negated: There are viable tilling options other than methods involving deep tillage.

If we have other alternatives to deep-tilling, then we are not forced down the path of no-tilling.

ZekeGiordano

@maco4538 GOAT