PT54.S2.Q24 - 1.3 billion cows worldwide

jane1010

http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-54-section-2-question-24/

i'm having a hard time understanding the answer for PT 54.2.24 ("there are 1.3 billion cows worldwide, and this population is growing....")

the answer is A (that cows given good quality diets would produce more meat/milk than they would otherwise), but i got this wrong because i thought it had nothing to do with the conclusion (i.e., methane production would be kept in check if cows were given better quality diets). i kept looking for a connection between diets and methane production, which led me to B (although i still had qualms about it since it didn't address the differential quality of diets). i can understand that A would potentially eliminate a counterargument to the conclusion, but why exactly is this the best answer when it doesn't address the methane issue (i.e., it doesn't directly address whether methane production would be "kept in check")? could you go over what exactly we should look for when strengthening the conclusion?

this question just threw me off -- the stimulus itself doesn't seem difficult but the answer choices just sucked!

thanks as always for all your help!

jane

iiiSpoon

This question is rather tricky but I think I understand the reason behind A well enough to hopefully give you an answer.

We are told that the large population of cattle must keep growing in order to keep up with demand; seems like context, and I thought of it as such at first, but then going all the way down to the second and last sentence, we are introduced with the idea of reducing methane farted from cattle which causes GW, and that it can be reduced with a high quality diet. The argument is concluded with the idea that we should give cattle high quality diets so they fart less methane.

One might go down the list and check off everything that does not have to do with methane, high quality diet, and reduction of methane (which is what I did and I ended up with no answer choices, derp) but if you think of this question as a weakening question, I believe it will lead you directly to the connection. If you were to weaken this question, you would automatically target the first sentence by stating, "WHOA, wait a tick environmental hippie, if you give cattle high quality diets, then the cattle produce less meat and milk, and so we would need more cattle to satisfy demand which makes your argument invalid. YOU TREE-HUGGER!"

So switching back to your strengthening persona, choice A would seem like the right choice.

Other options would consist of adding a point (but that does not exist in this question) or strengthening something mentioned in the choices (which is what A does, but does not seem obvious at first but if you try to weaken the question by negating A, you would absolutely hulk-smash this argument).

Hope this helped