LSAT 107 – Section 3 – Question 08

LSAT 107 - Section 3 - Question 08

October 1999

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:43

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT107 S3 Q08
+LR
+Exp
Except +Exc
Weaken +Weak
Causal Reasoning +CausR
A
80%
167
B
6%
160
C
3%
159
D
4%
159
E
8%
162
140
151
162
 +Medium 148.579 +SubsectionMedium

The local agricultural official gave the fruit growers of the District 10 Farmers’ Cooperative a new pesticide that they applied for a period of three years to their pear orchards in place of the pesticide they had formerly applied. During those three years, the proportion of pears lost to insects was significantly less than it had been during the previous three-year period. On the basis of these results, the official concluded that the new pesticide was more effective than the old pesticide, at least in the short term, in limiting the loss of certain fruit to insects.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The agricultural official presents the hypothesis that a new pesticide is more effective than the old pesticide at protecting pears against insects, at least over a short-term period. This hypothesis is based on observing that when pear farmers in District 10 switched from the old pesticide to the new pesticide for 3 years, they lost fewer pears to insects than during the previous 3 years.

Notable Assumptions
The agricultural official assumes that just because there were fewer pears lost to insects while the new pesticide was in use, the new pesticide was the cause of this change. In other words, the official assumes that there wasn’t some other factor which could have been the true cause of the farmers’ results.

A
The amount of fruit that an orchard can potentially produce depends in part on how many mature trees it contains, and the number of mature pear trees in District 10 has declined steadily over the past eight years.
This does not weaken, and so is the correct answer. This claim doesn’t explain why there would be fewer pears lost to insects in the last 3 years. Overall pear production can change without affecting the proportion of pears that insects destroy, so this just gives us nothing.
B
During the past five years, the farmers of the District 10 Farmers’ Cooperative have been gradually implementing a variety of insect-abatement programs, and some of these programs have proven successful.
This weakens the argument by providing an alternative explanation for the observation. If the pear farmers have been gradually implementing anti-insect programs, then it makes sense that the last 3 years would see fewer insect losses.
C
Over the past five years, one of the several species of birds that typically prey on the insects that feed on pears has gradually shifted its migratory patterns, spending more and more months each year in the region that contains District 10.
This weakens the argument by providing an alternative explanation for the observation. If insect-eating birds have been spending more time around District 10, they would have eaten more insects, thus protecting the pears.
D
Some of the species of insects in District 10 that infest pear trees are water breeders, and the reservoirs and marshlands in this district have been shrinking rapidly over the past three years.
This weakens the argument by providing an alternative explanation for the observation. If pear-eating insects have had less water in which to breed, then there would be fewer insects, which explains why there have been fewer pears eaten by insects.
E
The effects of certain pesticides, including the pesticide that had formerly been used in District 10, are cumulative and persist for several years after the pesticide is no longer applied.
This weakens the argument by providing an alternative explanation for the observation. If the effects of the old pesticide get stronger with each use and last for years, then the pears would have been protected by a strong built-up effect during the 3 years in question.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 107 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply