Economist: Historically, sunflower seed was one of the largest production crops in Kalotopia, and it continues to be a major source of income for several countries. The renewed growing of sunflowers would provide relief to Kalotopia’s farming industry, which is quite unstable. Further, sunflower oil can provide a variety of products, both industrial and consumer, at little cost to Kalotopia’s already fragile environment.
Summary
Sunflower seed was one of the largest production crops in Kalotopia. Sunflower seed is a major source of income for many countries. Renewing the growth of sunflower seeds in Kalotopia would help its unstable farming industry. Sunflower oil can provide a variety of industrial and consumer products at little cost to the environment. Kalotopia has a fragile environment.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
A former production crop in Kalotopia could help the farming industry if it were grown again.
A
Kalotopia’s farming industry will deteriorate if sunflowers are not grown there.
This is unsupported because we don’t know that the industry will get worse without the sunflowers. We only know that it is currently unstable.
B
Stabilizing Kalotopia’s farming industry would improve the economy without damaging the environment.
This is unsupported because while we know that the cost to the environment would be little, but not necessarily zero.
C
Kalotopia’s farming industry would be better off now if it had never ceased to grow any of the crops that historically were large production crops.
This is unsupported because we don’t know whether Kalotopia had important reasons for ceasing sunflower production in the past that made the country better off than if it had continued sunflower production.
D
A crop that was once a large production crop in Kalotopia would, if it were grown there again, benefit that country’s farmers and general economy.
This is strongly supported because the author states that growing sunflower seed, which used to be a large production crop, would benefit farmers and create new products.
E
Sunflower seed is a better crop for Kalotopia from both the environmental and the economic viewpoints than are most crops that could be grown there.
This is unsupported because the author never compares sunflower seed to other possible crops that may be able to solve the instability just as well.
The passage starts by telling us that maybe it's a good idea to teach high school kids calculus. Okay, let's explore. Is it a good idea?
Well, it might "benefit them" but it didn't specify in what way. So some unspecified benefit on the one hand.
Then, the passage turns around and tells us that there's some "level of abstraction" involved in calculus. Okay, like a high level or a low level? Don't know. But, if these high school kids aren't ready for whatever that "level of abstraction" is, then they may "abandon the study of mathematics".
So, if we're going to teach them calculus, we better make sure they're ready to handle that "level of abstraction".
Why? Because if they aren't ready, they might abandon the study of math. I mean, god forbid they decide to take up acting or some such non-sense.
Okay, I'm kidding, but you see the assumption right?
The assumption is that we don't want them to abandon the study of math. In other words, teach math to students only if it won't lead the students to abandon it. In other words, if you introduce calculus to students, then make sure that they can handle the "cognitive challenges" (or "level of abstraction") "without losing motivation" (or "without abandoning it"). That's (A). (A) tightens up the space between the premises and conclusion.
(C) is problematic for two reasons. First, is calculus a "cognitive task that requires exceptional effort"? We don't know. So we have to presume that it is. Okay, that's bad enough.
But, even if we presume that it is. Then all (C) tells us is that it undermines the motivation of those who attempt them. In other words, calculus just straight up hurts your self esteem and motivation. Never mind be ready to handle the "level of abstraction". It just hurts you. So... how does this help our argument?
A
Both worms and insects produce electric fields.
B
The star-nosed mole does not rely at all on its eyesight for survival.
C
The star-nosed mole does not rely at all on its sense of smell when hunting.
D
Only animals that hunt have noses with tentacles that detect electric fields.
E
The star-nosed mole does not produce an electric field.
The question stem reads: The reasoning in the board member’s argument is vulnerable to criticism on grounds that the argument… This is a Flaw question.
The board member begins by claiming that the J Foundation issued “you” this grant on the condition that the resulting work did not contain anything detrimental to the J Foundation’s reputation. In other words, meeting the conditions of the grant requires that “your” work not contain anything harmful to J Foundation’s reputation. However, the board member notes that the resulting work does not mention anything positive about the J Foundation. The board member concludes that “you” have failed to meet the conditions of the grant.
Here we have a very common flaw in the LSAT: assuming that negation and opposition are the same. The board member assumes that no positive information must mean the existence of negative information. However, positive information could also imply that the information in the work was simply neutral: the information was neither good nor bad for the J Foundation’s reputation. If the resulting work was neutral, then “you” would not violate the conditions of the grant. Let’s move to the answer choices.
Answer Choice (A) is incorrect. Whether or not the work has Intellectual value has nothing to do with the board member’s argument.
Answer Choice (B) is incorrect. The author does not confuse the necessary condition of “no harmful information” for being sufficient to issue the grant.
Correct Answer Choice (C) is what we discussed. The board member has assumed that failing to mention the laudable achievements of J Foundation amounts to harming the reputation of J Foundation.
Answer Choice (D) is something the argument fails to consider, but that is not why the argument is flawed.
Answer Choice (E) is also something that the argument does not consider, but (E) is not a problem for the argument. If you failed to satisfy the necessary condition of “no harmful information,” it would not matter how many other conditions were met. The problem is that we do not know if the work actually contained harmful information.