Logical reasoning PrepTest 118 · Section 4 · Question 23

Incorrect. It is one of two conclusions drawn by the argument, but, despite the argument using a pivot word, this first one does support the main point. In stating that increases to supply will be difficult, the Economist supports the conclusion that a future shortage is likely.

Incorrect. The main conclusion isn't a causal explanation, but rather a prediction. Additionally, the statement in question is an analysis of the difficulty of something, not a description of a phenomenon.

Incorrect. The fact that the argument pivots before stating the main conclusion should be a hint that there's at least a second premise offered in support of the conclusion. (Without the phrase "the only," this answer would be correct.)

Incorrect. While it is a prediction about the difficulty in making a certain change, the first sentence isn't the primary justification for it. Rather, the following statement—that farmland is already maxed out—is the primary justification for it.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Argument Structure

Stimulus Summary:
Grain production isn't going up, and most farmland is being used, so future increases are difficult. The population going up means we need more grain, so we're headed for a severe shortage.

Answer Anticipation:
The Economist here ends her argument with a prediction about the future that's introduced by "Hence," making it almost certainly the conclusion. This comes after a pivot that provides one reason to think we're headed for a shortage (demand going up), and since it supports the prediction, it's a premise. However, interestingly, the information before the pivot also supports the prediction—it just does so by analyzing another aspect of the problem, which is the supply of grain. In highlighting that further increases to supply will be "extremely difficult," the argument supports the conclusion that a shortage is in the offing.

Now that we've identified the statement in question as a premise supporting the conclusion, we need to see if it, itself, has any support, thus making it an intermediate conclusion. And there is support! The fact that most farmland is already being farmed with "near-maximal efficiency" suggests that it will be difficult to raise the supply in the future. Now that we've seen the statement in question has support but then goes on to support the main point, we can look for an answer stating that it's an intermediate conclusion of the argument.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights that it's a conclusion itself—it has support—but it provides support for the main point.

Key Takeaway:
Pivot words frequently indicate a pivot away from an opposing point to the author's argument. However, as we saw here, sometimes the pivot is from one piece of support for an argument to another thread of support for that argument. As with almost everything on the LSAT, there are exceptions to general rules, so you can't just apply them blindly!