LSAT 114 – Section 4 – Question 11

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:23

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
PT114 S4 Q11
+LR
Main conclusion or main point +MC
A
4%
158
B
5%
158
C
1%
153
D
4%
157
E
86%
162
120
132
149
+Easiest 144.851 +SubsectionEasier

Environmentalist: The complex ecosystem of the North American prairie has largely been destroyed to produce cattle feed. But the prairie ecosystem once supported 30 to 70 million bison, whereas North American agriculture now supports about 50 million cattle. Since bison yield as much meat as cattle, and the natural prairie required neither pesticides, machinery, nor government subsidies, returning as much land as possible to an uncultivated state could restore biodiversity without a major decrease in meat production.

Summarize Argument
The environmentalist concludes that returning land to an uncultivated state could avoid a major decrease in meat production while also restoring biodiversity. We know this because the prairie once supported 30 to 70 million bison––which is similar to the number of cattle that the North American prairie currently supports (50 million). However, in order to support the current cattle population, the prairie has been destroyed to produce cattle feed. Bison provide as much meat as cattle, but without needing the pesticides, machinery, or government subsidies that damage the prairie ecosystem.

Identify Conclusion
The conclusion tells us that it is possible to balance restoring biodiversity with maintaining meat production: “Returning as much land as possible to an uncultivated state could restore biodiversity without a major decrease in meat production.”

A
If earlier North American agricultural techniques were reintroduced, meat production would decrease only slightly.
This conditional statement is not supported by the argument, and it is not what the argument intends to prove, so it is not the main conclusion. We only know that uncultivated land would avoid a major decrease in production, not that it would definitely decrease slightly.
B
Protecting the habitat of wild animals so that we can utilize these animals as a food source is more cost effective than raising domesticated animals.
This is an attempt to make a generalization from the information given; this generalization is not made or supported in our argument so it is not the conclusion. Further, the argument does not address what is cost effective.
C
The biodiversity of the North American prairie ecosystem should not be restored if doing so will have intolerable economic consequences.
The “should” in this answer is a value judgement, while the argument consists of descriptive statements, so this is not the main conclusion. Further, the argument does not specifically address economic consequences.
D
Preservation of the remaining North American bison would be a sensible policy.
The argument only specifically talks about the impacts of returning to uncultivated land on meat production and biodiversity; the argument does not make a judgement on what is or is not sensible.
E
The devastation of the North American prairie ecosystem could be largely reversed without significantly decreasing meat production.
This statement about the relationship between agriculture practices and meat production is what the rest of the argument sets out to support. This answer is a paraphrase of the last part of the argument, which we identified as the main conclusion.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

Leave a Reply