QUESTION TYPE: Relationship between arguments
ARGUMENTS: Peter argues that farmers should give plants just enough water and no more. Otherwise insects will feed on their leaves.
Jennifer adds that a plant with little water will also produce pesticidal toxins and further reduce the amount of insects that want to eat it.
ANALYSIS: Jennifer supports Peter by adding completely new information. Her information doesn’t have anything to do with Peter’s reasoning. It adds new information that supports the conclusion by another method.
- Not quite. Jennifer’s information doesn’t have anything to do with the idea that plant leaves will become tougher in texture.
- Nope. Peter’s argument is fine on its own. Jennifer’s argument does support Peter, but by providing a completely new reason.
- Jennifer introduces a new premise that has nothing to do with Peter’s.
- Jennifer’s info supports Peter’s conclusion, but has no effect on the premises.
- CORRECT. If plants produce pesticides when they don’t have too much water than we shouldn’t give them too much water. This has nothing to do with leaf texture – it’s independent from Peter’s reasoning.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly