RC Question 27 Explanation, by LSATHacks
DISCUSSION: There are four elements in this questions:
- Thistles: competing with native grasses for space.
- Native grasses: Competing with thistles.
- Bad microorganisms: Attacking native grasses, letting thistles win.
- Good microorganisms: Defends native grasses against bad microorganisms, indirectly stopping thistles.
Good microorganisms indirectly help. In the right answer, Party A is thistles. We need to find an answer that indirectly attacks party A by helping defend a supporter.
If you still find this question confusing, concentrate on the relationships between the four parties above. Thistles and native grasses are competing. The microorganisms directly hurt or help native grasses, and thus indirectly hurt or help thistles.
___________
- This would be like directly attacking organisms that support thistles. But the stimulus doesn’t mention any organisms that help thistles. We’re looking for an answer where the newspaper defends a rival party.
- CORRECT. Party A is thistles. The rival candidates are other plants. The editorials are beneficial microorganisms, and the broadcast journalists are disease microorganisms.
The researchers indirectly stopped thistles by introducing beneficial microorganisms. The beneficial microorganisms defended native grasses against disease microorganisms, which let the grasses outcompete thistles.
Here, the newspaper indirectly attacks party A by defending a rival party from attacks by other journalists. So in both cases, there is only indirect offense. - Same as A.
- This is like attacking microorganisms that support thistles. The passage doesn’t mention any microorganisms that support thistles.
- This would be like attacking thistles directly.
Hi, I'm Graeme Blake
Founder of LSAThacks; I scored a 177 on the LSAT.
I created the LSAT Mastery Seminars, which are part of the Ultimate LSAT Prep Bundle
If you like the explanations you're reading I'm 100% confident you'll enjoy the courses. Satisfaction guaranteed.
---------
Updates:
For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.
This is one of my least favorite LSAT questions. And I usually enjoy the LSAT.
Answer choice (A) in my opinion is totally defensable.
In the passage, you want to take land that was previously more favorable to weeds than native vegetation, and do something so that the land becomes more favorable to native vegetation.
In choice A, you want to take voters that were previously more favorable to Party A than party B, and do something so that the voters become more favorable to party B.
In the passage, the “do something” is expose the land to elements (fungi) more beneficial to native vegetation than to weeds.
In choice A, the “do something” is expose the voters to newspaper articles that are more beneficial to party B than party A.
Is it a perfect analogy- no, of course not, but neither is (b). Choice (B) in my opinion implies that you are doing something to defend the native vegetation from disease organisms. This, to me, would mean something like spraying the native vegetation with a pesticide to make them resistant to the organisms. There is no indication of any such thing in the passage.
How you make the land more favorable matters – in the passage the approach is indirect (the thistles are driven out through support for the other species), so the direct approach (going after the candidates support) in answer choice A is disqualifying.
-Reply from LSAT Tutor, Morgan Barrett