LSAT 107 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q8

LR Question 8 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: The local agricultural official gave the fruit growers…

QUESTION TYPE: Weaken – Exception

CONCLUSION: The official concluded that the new pesticide was better than the old pesticide at lowering the amount of fruit lost to insects, in the short run.

REASONING: Farmers tried the new pesticide for three years, and less fruit was lost to insects.

ANALYSIS: This sounds like a good argument. But a lot can change in three years.

It’s much better to do a controlled experiment, where you compare both pesticides over the same period, in similar conditions.

___________

1. CORRECT. The conclusion wasn’t about the amount of fruit. It was about the proportion of fruit lost to insects.
2. It could be the new program and not the pesticide that reduced losses from insects.
3. This could mean that birds killed more insects. So it was the birds that protected crops from insects, and not pesticides.
4. This shows that the area wasn’t very suitable for insects. Fewer insects could explain why fewer crops fell victim to insects.
5. This shows that the old pesticide could still have been effective during those three years. The new pesticide might not have had any effect.

Recap: The question begins with “The local agricultural official gave the fruit growers”. It is a Weaken question. Learn more about LSAT Weaken questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.