LSAT 137 – Section 4 – Question 21

LSAT 137 - Section 4 - 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: 0:53

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 S4 Q21
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
A
4%
156
B
15%
161
C
76%
165
D
3%
157
E
2%
154
141
151
162
 +Medium 146.883 +SubsectionMedium

Farmer: My neighbor claims that my pesticides are spreading to her farm in runoff water, but she is wrong. I use only organic pesticides, and there is no evidence that they harm either people or domestic animals. Furthermore, I am careful to avoid spraying on my neighbor’s land.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The farmer concludes that his pesticides are not running off onto his neighbor’s lawn because he only uses non-harmful organic pesticides and he’s careful to avoid her property when spraying them.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The farmer’s argument is flawed because it doesn’t address the neighbor’s claim. The neighbor only claims that the farmer’s pesticides are spreading to her farm through water runoff, which could still be happening even if they’re harmless. The farmer spraying carefully is also irrelevant since the neighbor claims that the pesticides spread through runoff water.

A
It treats lack of evidence that organic pesticides harm people or domestic animals as proof that they cannot do so.
Whether organic pesticides are harmful or not is irrelevant because the neighbor’s claim is just that pesticides are spreading to her property.
B
It presumes, without providing justification, that being careful to avoid something usually results in its avoidance.
Whether the farmer actually avoids spraying on the neighbor’s property or not is irrelevant since the neighbor claims that the pesticides spread through runoff water.
C
It does not address the neighbor’s claim that pesticides used by the farmer are spreading onto her land.
This describes the irrelevance of the farmer’s evidence. The neighbor just claims that the farmer’s pesticides are spreading to her land through runoff water, so it doesn’t matter whether or not they’re harmful or whether or not they’re sprayed directly on her land.
D
It fails to provide an alternative explanation for the presence of pesticides on the neighbor’s land.
The farmer doesn’t accept that pesticides are on the neighbor’s land, so there’s no need to provide such an explanation.
E
It ignores the possibility that pesticides might have dangerous effects other than harming people or domestic animals.
This is irrelevant. The neighbor merely claims that the farmer’s pesticides are spreading to her land, so the pesticides’ possible effects don’t matter.

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