PrepTest 124

Incorrect. The argument establishes good soil as having nutrients, organic matter, and microbial activity—it doesn't assume there's a causal connection between those elements.

Incorrect. This answer is too strong in stating that insects "never" attack crops grown in good soil. If one insect goes after a single crop grown in good soil, the proposed solution could still work.

Incorrect. The argument states that growing crops in good soil is a "better" solution to pesticides, so it's possible for pesticides to work to some degree.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Problem - Insects damage weak crops
Solution 1 - Pesticides
Problem with Solution 1 - Pesticides don't address the underlying issue
Implied Solution 2 - Grow robust crops
Conclusion - Growing crops in good soil is a better solution

Answer Anticipation:
This is an interesting argument in how it's structured.

The argument itself can be viewed through the problem/solution lens—the problem is that insects damage crops. It brings up one solution to rule it out—the use of pesticides doesn't address the underlying problem.

That's all standard for a problem/solution argument. Where it gets interesting is in the author's preferred solution. And it's interesting because there are two preferred solutions.

The first is in the premises, and it's implied. The author brings up that robust crops are better at avoiding and withstanding insect attack. This suggests she believes growing robust crops is a solution to the problem.

The second is in the conclusion—growing crops in good soil would serve as a "better" solution than pesticides. However, there's no information in the premises about why this would be helpful. Instead, the premises establish growing robust crops as the solution, and the conclusion brings up using good soil as a solution.

Therefore, the author must be assuming that the two are connected—that the good soil will lead to robust crops. Let's look for that connection in the answers.

Answer Explanation:
This answer connects the two solutions that the author brings up as being preferable to using pesticides. If good soil doesn't generally lead to more robust crops, there's no reason to believe that it'll result in crops better able to withstand insect damage, undermining the argument.

Key Takeaway:
Knowing the patterns that show up on the LSAT isn't about just noting them when they're present. Knowing the elements of these patterns allows you to see when something breaks out of the pattern. When that happens, it's almost always directly related to the answer. Here, the author implied two preferred solutions to a problem, one in the premises and the other in the conclusion. Knowing that these arguments almost always revolve around one preferred solution, we could anticipate that the answer would connect the two.

Incorrect. If anything, the argument assumes that not using pesticides but using good soil will result in more—not less—robust crops. Even then, the argument doesn't rule out the use of pesticides or connect it to robustness, instead stating that another solution is better than pesticides.