LSAT 118 | Section 4 | Logical Reasoning: Q23

LR Question 23 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Agricultural economist: Over the past several years …

QUESTION TYPE: Role in Argument

CONCLUSION: A big global grain shortage is likely.

REASONING:

• Grain production has basically stopped increasing.
• Further increases will be extremely difficult because most farmland is already being used near maximum efficiency.
• Meanwhile, grain demand keeps rising due to population growth.

ANALYSIS: In Role in Argument questions, you want to identify the argument’s structure. See the Conclusion and Reasoning section above for a breakdown of the argument.

We’re asked about the statement: “Further increases will be extremely difficult.”

Does the author support that claim? Yes. The very next sentence about farmland and efficiency supports it.

Does the author then use that claim to support something else? Also yes. It helps support the final conclusion that a grain shortage is likely.

Whenever a statement is both supported by earlier/later evidence and used to support the main conclusion, it is an intermediate conclusion.

Think of it as a bridge:

Evidence → Intermediate Conclusion → Main Conclusion

That’s exactly what’s happening here.

___________

1. This says there are two separate conclusions and neither supports the other. Not true. “Further increases will be extremely difficult” is used to support the grain-shortage conclusion.
2. It’s not a phenomenon being explained. The argument isn’t trying to explain why production increases are difficult. It’s using that fact as part of the case for a future shortage.
3. There’s other premises supporting the conclusion as well (e.g. increasing demand).
4. The first claim is that grain production hasn’t been increasing. The statement we’re analyzing is not just a prediction based on that fact; it’s also supported independently by the farmland-efficiency premise.
5. CORRECT. See above. The statement is supported by another statement but it also supports the main conclusion. So it functions as an intermediate conclusion presented as evidence for the main conclusion.