Summary
The author concludes that farmers who now deep-till should try to use no-till methods. Why? Because farmers who till deeply are much more likely to lose topsoil to erosion than are farmers who use no-till methods.
Notable Assumptions
The author concludes that farmers using deep-till methods should switch to no-till methods...but aren’t we overlooking other potential options? What if a shallow-till method is less likely to damage topsoil than both deep-till and no-till? The author assumes that there’s no other method that would be more effective at reducing topsoil loss than deep-till and no-till.
A
Topsoil erosion does not make farmers want to till more deeply.
What farmers “want” to do is irrelevant to the argument. What matters is what farmers actually do. Farmers may “want” to till more deeply in response to topsoil, but that doesn’t undermine the argument because it doesn’t imply that farmers in fact are tilling more deeply in response to topsoil erosion.
B
In deep-tillage farming, the deeper one tills, the greater the susceptibility to topsoil erosion.
Not necessary, because the author doesn’t have to assume the “deeper” the till, the “greater” the susceptibility. It’s possible, for example, that deep-tilling leads to more topsoil erosion than shallow tilling, but that effect happens only after we exceed a certain depth.
C
Tilling by any method other than deep tillage is not a viable option.
Necessary, because if this weren’t true — if tilling by another method besides deep tillage IS a viable option — then the author has not proven that current deep-till farmers should switch to no-till. Maybe they should switch to some other till method besides deep-till? The author must assume that these other options aren’t viable.
D
The most expensive farming methods employ topsoil aeration techniques other than deep tillage.
The “most expensive farming methods” have no connection to the reasoning of this argument.
E
On average, topsoil that is no-tilled is more aerated than topsoil that is tilled deeply.
Not necessary, because we don’t know the relationship between greater or less aeration and amount of topsoil loss to erosion. If, on average, topsoil that is no-tilled is NOT more aerated than topsoil that is tilled deeply, that doesn’t undermine the argument, because we’d still have evidence that the deep-tillers are more likely to experience topsoil loss.
This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!
This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!
This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that if Logichut doesn’t have any creative employees, then its management must be open to new ideas. This is based on the fact that in order for a company to grow rapidly, it must be innovative, which requires that it have creative employees or a management open to new ideas. In addition, the computer software industry — of which Logichut is a part — is rapidly growing.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that because the software industry is rapidly growing, that Logichut, as an individual company within that industry, must also be rapidly growing. This overlooks the possibility that what is true of the whole industry does not have to be true of the individual companies that make up that industry. Logichut might be stagnant or shrinking, even if the industry generally is growing.
A
illicitly presumes that because a set of things has a certain property, each member of that set has the property
The author assumes that since a set of things (the software industry) is rapidly growing, each member of that set (companies in the industry) must also be rapidly growing. This overlooks the possibility that some companies might not be growing, despite overall industry growth.
B
confuses a necessary condition for a company’s being innovative with a sufficient condition for a company’s being innovative
The author doesn’t infer that Logichut is innovative on the basis of having creative employees or management open to new ideas. The author infers that Logichut is innovative on the basis of an assumption that Logichut is rapidly growing, which we know requires innovation.
C
illicitly concludes that because many people believe something, it must be true
By using “if so,” author expressly conditions the conclusion on the truth of the claim that Logichut has no creative employees. This acknowledges that the claim might not be true, so it’s wrong to say the author concludes that what people say/believe about Logichut must be true.
D
confuses a necessary condition for a company to grow rapidly with a sufficient condition for a company to grow rapidly
The author does not infer that Logichut is growing rapidly on the basis of the necessary condition for growing rapidly (innovation). Rather, the author assumes that Logichut is growing rapidly on the basis of the industry as a whole growing rapidly.
E
overlooks the possibility that a software company could have both creative employees and a management that is open to new ideas
It may be possible for a company to have both. The author’s position is merely that if Logichut does not have creative employees, then it must have management open to new ideas. This doesn’t assume that Logichut can’t have both.