LSAT 137 – Section 2 – Question 21

LSAT 137 - Section 2 - Question 21

October 2012

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:38

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 Q21
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
A
7%
158
B
9%
160
C
6%
158
D
75%
165
E
3%
154
144
153
162
 +Harder 146.731 +SubsectionMedium

The presence of bees is necessary for excellent pollination, which, in turn, usually results in abundant fruits and vegetables. Establishing a beehive or two near one’s garden ensures the presence of bees. Keeping bees is economical, however, only if the gardener has a use for homegrown honey. Thus, gardeners who have no use for homegrown honey will tend not to have beehives, so their gardens will fail to have excellent pollination.

Summarize Argument
We have a series of conditional statement premises:

Excellent pollination → bees
Beehive → bees
Keeping bees economical → use for homegrown honey

Intermediate conc.:

Gardeners without a use for homegrown honey will tend not to have beehives.

Main conc.:

Gardeners without a use for homegrown honey won’t have excellent pollination.

Identify and Describe Flaw
In the jump from the int. conc. to the main conc., the author assumes that failing to have beehives implies there won’t be excellent pollination. This reverses the statement “beehive → bees.” Beehives ensure bees, but that doesn’t mean beehives are necessary for bees.

Also, in the jump to the int. conc., the author assumes that if keeping bees isn’t economical for someone, they probably won’t have beehives.

A
The argument fails to consider the possibility that obtaining homegrown honey is only one of several advantages of beehives.
The argument doesn’t concern whether it’s a good idea to have beehives. So other benefits of honey are irrelevant.
B
The argument confuses what is necessary for pollination to take place with what would guarantee that it takes place.
The argument doesn’t confuse the statement about pollination. If bees aren’t present, pollination can’t happen. What the argument confuses is whether beehives are necessary for the presence of bees.
C
The argument confuses what is necessary for an abundance of fruits and vegetables with what is usually conducive to it.
The argument doesn’t use the statement about fruits and vegetables as part of how it reaches the conclusion. So there’s no confusion about that statement.
D
The argument fails to consider that bees might be present even in the absence of a particular condition that would ensure their presence.
Although we know beehives ensure bees, that doesn’t mean they’re necessary for bees. So we can’t infer from the lack of beehives that there won’t be excellent pollination. There can still be excellent pollination, because there can still be bees present.
E
The argument bases a claim that there is a causal connection between beehives and excellent pollination on a mere association between them.
There is no causal claim concerning beehives and excellent pollination. The author assumes that lack of beehives implies lack of excellent pollination, but that isn’t a causal claim.

I misspoke at 2:48. Regarding the conditional EBH -> KB, EBH is the subset and KB is the superset. I said it the other way around, making the oldest mistake in the book, sufficiency necessity confusion. Egg on my face.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 137 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply