LSAT 135 – Section 1 – Question 13

LSAT 135 - Section 1 - Question 13

December 2011

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:31

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
PT135 S1 Q13
+LR
Strengthen +Streng
Net Effect +NetEff
Math +Math
A
2%
158
B
3%
156
C
0%
152
D
4%
156
E
90%
165
134
143
152
 +Medium 146.098 +SubsectionMedium

Researchers have studied the cost-effectiveness of growing halophytes—salt-tolerant plant species—for animal forage. Halophytes require more water than conventional crops, but can be irrigated with seawater, and pumping seawater into farms near sea level is much cheaper than pumping freshwater from deep wells. Thus, seawater agriculture near sea level should be cost-effective in desert regions although its yields are smaller than traditional, freshwater agriculture.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that seawater agriculture should be cost-effective in desert regions near sea level. He supports this by saying that salt-tolerant plants (halophytes) require more water but can be irrigated with seawater, which is much cheaper to pump than freshwater.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that seawater agriculture is cost-effective simply because seawater irrigation is cost-effective. He assumes that the benefits of seawater irrigation outweigh any other potential costs of seawater agriculture, like higher fertilizer or equipment costs.

A
A given volume of halophytes is significantly different in nutritional value for animal forage from the same volume of conventional forage crops.
This doesn't tell us if halophytes are more or less nutritious than conventional crops for animal forage. Knowing they have "significantly different" nutritional value doesn't help to establish that halophytes are more cost-effective.
B
Some halophytes not only tolerate seawater but require salt in order to thrive.
The author says that halophytes are salt-tolerant and that they’re more cost-effective because they can be irrigated with seawater. In other words, she already assumes that the plants will be irrigated with salt water. The fact that they require salt is irrelevant.
C
Large research expenditures are needed to develop the strains of halophytes best suited for agricultural purposes.
This weakens the argument by presenting another cost of halophytes. If seawater agriculture requires expensive research, it might not actually be more cost-effective overall.
D
Costs other than the costs of irrigation are different for halophytes grown by means of seawater irrigation than for conventional crops.
The fact that other halophyte costs are “different” from conventional crop costs doesn't tell us if halophytes are more or less expensive overall.
E
Pumping water for irrigation is proportionally one of the largest costs involved in growing, harvesting, and distributing any forage crop for animals.
If irrigation is one of the largest costs in producing forage crops, this suggests that seawater agriculture may indeed be more cost-effective in certain areas, since seawater irrigation is much cheaper.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 135 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply