LR Question 12 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Though Earth’s human population is increasing, it …
QUESTION TYPE: Weaken
CONCLUSION: We won’t face a plague of water shortages in the near future.
REASONING: We only use a small portion of our fresh water.
ANALYSIS: If you live in a desert area, you might see the flaw. Water isn’t distributed evenly.
I live in Canada. We’ve got tons of water. More than we know what to do with. Other countries aren’t so lucky, and they’re short on water already. With more population growth, they’ll face more shortages. It’s not that easy to share water. You can export it in bulk, but you can’t make it rain in other countries.
___________
- The conclusion says that we’ll have shortages “unless population growth trends change”. So this possibility of error is already accounted for.
- CORRECT. This points out the possibility that we could have water shortages in some regions even if most regions have more than enough water. And this is a real problem – many arid regions face water shortages even at current population levels.
- So what? Apparently we’re only using a small portion of our water, so water conservation doesn’t seem like it needs to be a priority. If you thought “some regions don’t have water and thus need to conserve”….well, answer B is the answer that address that concern. Answer C doesn’t address differences between regions.
- The key word in this answer is eventually.
The argument only disagrees with the prediction that we’ll face shortages in the near future. - So? I see no reason to expect that water usage rates in different industries will increase at the same speed. And the key fact in the stimulus is that we’re using only a small portion of our water. This answer doesn’t tell us that we’ll run out of water even with massively increased agricultural usage.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Hi, I'm Graeme Blake
I run LSAT Hacks, and got a 177 on the LSAT. The single best thing I've ever made is the set of LSAT Mastery seminars. They show you how to think like a 170+ scorer when doing questions. Get them here: Mastery Seminars
I guarantee you'll like them, or you get your money back within 7 days. There's no risk. Check the reviews, people have said they improved within a few days.
---------
Photos and Updates: You can follow me on Instagram here
For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.
I don’t think that your example would fall into the category of “absurd” but I certainly would not call it acceptable. I think attributing the label “humankind” to certain issues just because it affects a large amount of people/certain regions is inaccurate because it is extremely possible in the other regions that this “issue” is not a concern in the slightest.
I believe that for something to “plague humankind” people across the world need to somehow be vulnerable to it. Whether it is some sort of disease (another reason why I don’t like how they used plague as a verb here), ash from a volcano (which has the potential to affect countries across the world), global warming effects, food/oil shortages across the world, world wars, etc. I believe it needs to affect humankind as a whole/in general, not just a majority of humans in the world.
Sorry for the rant, hope that makes sense! Appreciate all you do, love your website!
You’re being overtechnical and ignoring the plain meaning of the question and answers. The correct answer says varies “significantly from region to region”. That means multiple regions have highs and lows, and so a water shortage would potentially affect multiple regions.
If we had wars happening in two dozen places, I think it would be fair to say that “war plagues humankind”. It’s rhetorical language. It doesn’t have to literally affect every human. After all, ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee, etc, etc. A lot of people consider humankind as a moral community and so if a problem affects many then it is a plague on us all. That seems to be the sense they meant it in.
I understand the reasoning for B, but I guess I got tripped up on the “humankind” in the stimulus. If the argument is that shortages will affect humankind, which I took to mean the entire human population and not just certain populations in certain regions, why does B undermine that?
Hi Marissa,
Well, I think we can make the assumption that if water shortages significantly affect certain regions, we can say that those shortages plague humankind in general. Otherwise, where would we draw the line? Would water shortages have to affect every single individual for those shortages to affect “humankind?”
Think of it this way, would it be absurd to say — in common parlance — that if water shortages significantly affected the Middle East and Asia, that wouldn’t be enough people to say those shortages affected “humankind”? Probably not.