PrepTest 117

[lcid:3565] Prep Test 117 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S2 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Most plants have developed Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: E

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Question Type

Bizarro / Weaken Questions

Answer choices

  1. A
    Humans have been consuming Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    Incorrect. While this answer doesn't specifically mention synthetic pesticides, it brings up something true of organic pesticides that can't be true of synthetic ones (humans haven't had that technology for millennia). Since this difference has to do with safety in human consumption, it weakens the argument and thus can be eliminated.
  2. B
    The concentrations of natural Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    Incorrect. This answer highlights a difference, and the amount of a substance consumed is definitely related to how safe it is to consume, so this answer weakens the argument.
  3. C
    Natural plant pesticides are Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    Incorrect. Another relevant difference, so this also weakens the argument.
  4. D
    Natural plant pesticides generally Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    Incorrect. One more difference. This one is relevant, as well. If natural pesticides are targeted at specific parasites but synthetic ones affect more organisms, the latter are more likely to harm humans. This, therefore, weakens the argument.
  5. E
    The synthetic pesticides sprayed Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem
    Correct. Argument or Facts:
    Argument

    Valid or Flawed:
    Flawed

    Question Type:
    Bizarro Weaken

    Stimulus Summary:
    Plants have natural pesticides that humans safely eat every day, so synthetic pesticides are also safe for humans.

    Answer Anticipation:
    While correlation/causation flaws are the most common in Weaken questions, this one doesn't have such a flaw—instead, it has another common flaw in this question type that similarly has patterns of what to look for in the answer choices.

    Here, the argument shows that natural pesticides are safe, and then concludes that synthetic pesticides are safe. That's a jump between two distinct things, and, as such, it's assuming that natural and synthetic pesticides are similar as far as safety for humans is concerned.

    That similarity, however, is never established. Since this argument is relying on them being similar to work, relevant differences will weaken it. Let's head into the answer choices and eliminate any that bring up a relevant difference between natural and synthetic pesticides.

    Answer Explanation:
    First, without a degree in chemistry, we can't say that structure is related to toxicity. Ignoring that, though, this answer brings up a similarity, not a difference, so if it is relevant, it strengthens the argument. Since either way it doesn't weaken the argument, this is the correct answer.

    Key Takeaway:
    When an argument relies on two things being similar, you can weaken it with a relevant difference. When an argument relies on two things being different, you can weaken it with a relevant similarity.

What this tests

Discussion

  • Why not A? 2 replies

    Started by mayapierce

  • #8 2 replies

    Started by jam0086@mix.wvu.edu

  • Please Explain the Answer 1 reply

    Started by Kyra