Logical reasoning PrepTest 111 · Section 1 · Question 26

Incorrect. Neither speaker advocates for population control, so this answer can be immediately rolled out.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Point of Agreement

Stimulus Summary:
K: More land for food and cities means less land for forests and wildlife, so a growing population threatens nature.

H: Nah, technology will make it all okay.

Answer Anticipation:
First, this is a Point of Agreement question, not the more common Point at Issue question! Don't get them confused—the LSAT will frequently give an answer that would be correct in a Point at Issue question here to see if you're paying attention.

Here, Kim identifies a current problem. Hampton agrees that the problem exists but believes that technology will solve it. So the point of agreement between them is that there is a problem that needs to be addressed through some means. Let's find an answer reflecting that.

Answer Explanation:
Kim believes that the population is putting a strain on our natural resources due to increased demands for food and city space. Since she believes this is a serious problem, she would agree that research into ways to alleviate it would be beneficial. And this is the whole point of Hampton's argument. This answer is therefore a point of agreement between them! It's a little different from our anticipation, and Kim doesn't directly talk about technology, but the way this answer is phrased ("would be beneficial") allows us to commit her to it.

Key Takeaway:
Point of Agreement questions are much rarer than Point at Issue questions so it's easy to think you're in the latter question type when it's really an example of the former! Point of Agreement questions also frequently have a trap answer that would be correct in the other question type ((D) is in that ballpark) so read the question stem carefully.

Incorrect. Neither speaker discusses this specific solution as being necessary, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. Kim doesn't make a prediction as to whether the issue will be solved, but she seems pessimistic. Hampton is confident that the problem will be solved so that there's not a significant increase in land used for food production. So this answer is either out of scope of Kim's statements, or it's a point that they somewhat disagree on. In either case, it's wrong!

Incorrect. Kim doesn't discuss diet, so this answer is out of scope of her statements. (Hampton would disagree, as he believes technology can solve the problem.)