LSAT 137 – Section 2 – Question 01

LSAT 137 - Section 2 - Question 01

October 2012

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

Target time: 1:04

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
PT137 S2 Q01	+LR	Weaken +Weak Net Effect +NetEff Value Judgment +ValJudg	A 88% 164 B 1% 158 C 2% 154 D 4% 157 E 4% 157	130 141 152	+Easier	146.731 +SubsectionMedium

Planting peach trees on their farm makes more sense for the Johnsons than planting apricot trees. Although fresh, locally grown apricots are very popular in this area, the same is true of peaches. However, individual peach trees cost much less to purchase and plant than do apricot trees, and peach trees also begin bearing fruit at a much younger age.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that the Johnsons should plant peach trees rather than apricot trees. She supports this by saying that, while both are popular, peach trees are less expensive than apricot trees and they start producing fruit at a much younger age.

Notable Assumptions

The author assumes that planting cheaper trees will increase the Johnsons’ profit without considering other factors, like the cost of maintenance or the price of peaches versus apricots.

She also assumes that, because peach trees produce fruit at a younger age, they will produce more fruit over time. She doesn’t consider whether peach trees stop producing fruit at a young age, or whether they simply produce far less fruit overall.

She also assumes that these are the most important factors in the Johnsons’ decision, overlooking any other factors that might make apricots a better option.

Fresh, locally grown apricots sell at a much higher price than do fresh, locally grown peaches.

This weakens the argument by showing that one of the author's assumptions is false. She assumes that cheaper trees will lead to more income for the farm, but (A) points out that apricots, which sell for a higher price, could actually generate more income than peaches long term.

Apricot trees tend to stop being productive at a younger age than do peach trees.

This strengthens the argument. If apricots stop being productive at a younger age, it might make more sense for the Johnsons to plant peaches instead.

It costs as much to water and fertilize peach trees as it does to water and fertilize apricot trees.

Like (B), this slightly strengthens the argument. If water and fertilizer costs are the same but peach trees are less expensive to buy and plant, it might make more sense for the Johnsons to plant peaches instead of apricots.

The market for fresh, locally grown apricots has grown in recent years as awareness of the health benefits of eating fresh fruit has increased.

(D) wants us to assume that the market for apricots has grown more than the market for peaches, but we don’t know this. Since “awareness of the health benefits of eating fresh fruit has increased,” it’s very possible that the market for peaches has grown just as much or more.

Peach production has decreased dramatically over the last several years.

This doesn’t address the author’s argument or assumptions. If peach production has decreased, should they plant peaches to fill this gap in production? Or should they avoid planting them due to other factors affecting production? We simply don’t know.

LSAT 137 – Section 2 – Question 01

LSAT 137 - Section 2 - Question 01

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

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 137 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel