LSAT 107 – Section 3 – Question 09

LSAT 107 - Section 3 - Question 09

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: 1:01

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 Q09
+LR
+Exp
Strengthen +Streng
Causal Reasoning +CausR
A
7%
159
B
1%
156
C
78%
168
D
2%
159
E
13%
161
144
153
163
 +Harder 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 official hypothesizes the new pesticide better protects some fruit against insect pests than the old pesticide, at least in the short term. Why? Because when the new pesticide was applied to a sample of pear trees over three years, those trees lost fewer pears to insects than they had over the previous three years.

Notable Assumptions
The official assumes there’s no other reason, besides the new pesticide, why insects ate a smaller proportion of the sample pears during the last three years than they ate during the previous three years.

A
peach trees grown in the district that were treated with the new pesticide instead of the old pesticide
This would neither strengthen nor weaken the official’s argument. He restricts his conclusion to “certain” fruits, so it would not affect his argument if peaches did worse than pears.
B
peach trees grown in the district that were treated with the new pesticide in addition to the old pesticide
This would neither strengthen nor weaken the official’s argument. He makes no claim about the effectiveness of the new pesticide when used in tandem with the old pesticide.
C
pear trees grown in the district that were treated with the old pesticide instead of the new pesticide
This strengthens the official’s argument. It implies pear trees treated with the new pesticide showed more resistance to insects than those treated with the old pesticide during the same time.
D
pear trees grown in a neighboring district that were treated with neither the old nor the new pesticide
This is irrelevant to the official’s argument. He makes no claim about the ability of untreated trees to keep their fruits safe from insects.
E
pear trees grown in a neighboring district that were treated with the new pesticide instead of the old pesticide
This slightly weakens the official’s argument—it doesn’t strengthen it. It suggests factors specific to District 10 could have been responsible for fewer pears being eaten by insects.

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