PT.56.S2.Q25 - counterproductive for farmers to use insecticides

mmiglio

Prest Test 56 - section 2 - Q25.

Question removed. Please see video for question:
http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-56-section-2-question-25/

---

Now, before I list the answers, please read my thought process so you can better understand where my head was at.
"In the long run... to use insecticides." --> Main Conclusion.
"Because insects... with insecticide use." --> Premise.
", farmers have to... to control insect pests." --> Sub Conclusion / Conclusion to the Above premise.

That's what I was thinking.

A.) It is the argument's main conclusion, but not its only conclusion.
B.) It is a CLAIM for which a causal EXPLANATION is provided and which itself is used as direct support for the argument's only conclusion.
C.) It is the argument's only conclusion.
D.) It is a claim that is used as direct support for an intermediary conclusion, which in turn is used as direct support for the argument's main conclusion.
E.) It identifies a phenomenom for which the argument's main conclusion offers a causal explanation.


*spoiler*
The second choice is the correct answer. Which implies that my labeling was wrong. The answer states that it was a claim (what i would consider to be a conclusion) and that it's accompanied by a "casual" (what the heck is that supposed to mean, LSAC,) "explanation," which is supposed to be the premise. It further states that this "claim" is used as direct support for the argument's ONLY CONCLUSION.

How is this the only conclusion!?? When the LSAT says Claim and Explanation in the answer choices or question stems, does it mean Conclusion and Premise or are these two phenomenon something different entirely?

I apologize if JY explained this in one of his lessons, but i seemed to have missed it and tracking it down seemed more time consuming than asking the forums.

annkang1005

First of all, not all claims are conclusions. There can be as many as 3~4 claims written in the stimulus that the author opposes or may use as a support, or as a conclusion.

In this case, both the main conclusion and the premise/subconclusion are claims that the author is making. In this case, I don't think the LSAT writers were counting the "farmers have to use~~" as a conclusion because it is a premise/subconclusion, and authors weren't counting subconclusion as a conclusion.

I'm curious, what did you put down as your answer? By your reasoning above, you still should have been able to eliminate A, C, D, E.

ENTJ

You should review the causation theory lesson. It clears up a lot. But to answer your immediate question as to why (B) must be correct, here's the following:

1. We know for a fact the first sentence is the only conclusion. Why? Because if you try to flip the support around it won't make sense.
2. Look at the premise indicator "because". Now I think where you got a little fuzzy in the logic is by thinking there is more to the structural component; particularly with what comes after the comma. That whole sentence is a causal explanation. Insecticides have to be used in greater quantity because of the immunity developed in the insects, which would compel the farmer to use more which costs them a ton of money.

Cause: We have to use a higher quantity of insecticides because the bastards are developing immunity.
Effect: This is costing the farmer a shitload of money.

Conclusion: This way of dealing with the problem is pretty stupid (counterproductive).

Analysis: Forget the word claim. Now do you see that it's a causal explanation? The explanation provides credence (support) that this is way too expensive. Which directly supports the conclusion that this way of handling the insects is totally counterproductive.

LSATisland

I hear how the 'only conclusion' threw you off. LSAT is probably avoiding terming it 'sub-conclusion' because it's not very argumentative. The first sentence is arguing a point: pesticides is counter-productive. The additional use of pesticides is more a reality/result that supports the conclusion.

Attacking this question through process of elimination could have helped. The first answer is definitely wrong because the first sentence (pesticides are counter-productive) is the conclusion. Even if the role was a sub-conclusion, there is still that first sentence.

mmiglio

@annkang1005 I answered A, because I was positive that the statement had a Main Conclusion followed by a Premise + Sub Conclusion. While I was compelled to pick B, I didn't understand it because I'd never encountered the words claim and explanation.

@Thy Name is Al I will review that lesson.
What do you mean by your #1 point? I switched the two sentences around and it still made sense to me. "Because x, then z. In the long run, y." or "In the long run, y. Because x, then z."
Is that the kind of flip you meant?

I see how you can convince me that it's a casual explanation, I just don't understand the relationship between Claim + Premise / Explanation + Conclusion.
How is a casual explanation different from a premise and conclusion?
Do casual explanations not make assumptions or draw connections?
Are casual explanations merely information and facts?
If casual explanations are just showing cause and effect, how do we know that the author is a credible source and that his cause and effect isnt making any assumptions, and do I care if he's credible or not?
What does "casual" explanation mean, and how is it different than a plain explanation?


@lsatisland I saw, in this same exam (prep test 56) the word sub conclusion used at least once. I don't understand why they're switching their terminology around so loosely. I understand that it is English, and English has many ways to throw up the same argument, but what I'm really trying to figure out is if the second sentence IS or ISN'T, 100%, a premise and conclusion.

If it's not, and it's just a claim and explanation, then this is some new terminology that I haven't seen on the LSAT thus far and must do research on.

ENTJ

http://7sage.com/lesson/causation-theory/
http://7sage.com/lesson/causation-strategy/
http://7sage.com/lesson/how-to-approach-argument-part-questions/

I had my response all typed out but I don't think it would do much good. You can skype with me and I can explain my take if you really want. But I would really review those 3 links I posted before anything else.

mmiglio

Lol, I'm sorry you went through the trouble... I recently typed out a long question and a bunch of my reasoning that equated to a thousand words or so, only to discover the flaw in my reasoning at the very last sentence that I wrote..

backspace.

Thanks for the links

ENTJ

Tis the curse of would-be lawyers.