PT5.S3.Q2 - protect valuable natural resources

crazyloed

I need help with this question

Admin note: Please review the forum rules.

@"J.Y. Ping" said:
3. Do not post LSAT questions, any copyrighted content, or links to content that infringe on copyright. Not a good way to take the first few steps down a long road that is your legal career.

I crossed off E because it was making a recommendation while the conclusion says "Nonetheless, federal expenditures for nationwide soil conservation programs have remained at ridiculously low levels" which is just saying their spending is low. So with main conclusions the answer can be something it implies as well because I thought it had to paraphrase the conclusion. I choose D stupidly after which simply restates the premise.

inactive

Please don't post full LSAT questions on the forums.

nye8870

The "main point" is just another way of saying the "conclusion". It is the second sentence. Reworded to account for referential phrases, it says: "The U.S. has ignored (not protected) one valuable natural resource (top soil) for far too long. The way in which it has been ignored is by not having received a fair amount of funding. (E) says The federal government should spend much more on soil conservation than it has been spending. That makes perfect sense. The "recommendation" aspect you alluded to was a good spot by you... but by the stimulus making the point that it's been this way "for far too long" it does not take a very large leap to understand the writer wants something to be done.