Q13 - Researchers have studied the cost-effectivenss

[kamptaryc]

HELP PLEASE!!!! ........not really clear on why E is correct

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The argument concludes that seawater agriculture near sea level should be cost-effective in desert regions. Why? Because it's cheaper to pump seawater than to pump freshwater from deep wells. One question that remains is what other sort of costs besides the pumping of water for irrigation may be at play in desert regions near sea level?

Answer choice (E) addresses this point and makes the pumping of water for agriculture is one of the largest costs. By reducing the cost of other possible expenses of agriculture in desert regions near sea level, this answer choice makes it more likely that seawater irrigation of agriculture should be cost-effective.

Incorrect answers

(A) is irrelevant. This answer choice does not make it more likely that seawater irrigation will be cost-effective since halophytes may have less nutritional value. Suggeting the nutritional value is different does not help make seawater agriculture cost-effective.
(B) is irrelevant. What about the cost of seawater agriculture?
(C) undermines the argument by increasing the investment cost of undertaking seawater agriculture.
(D) is irrelevant because we aren't told whether those costs are greater or less for halophyte production.

[jm.kahn]

I picked E which is a clear strengthener, but what's a solid reason behind why B doesn't strengthen at all?

It seems that if halophyte requires salt to thrive, then it strengthens the conclusion that seawater agriculture of halophytes would be cost-effective compared to freshwater agriculture of halophytes. Because unlike seawater agriculture, the freshwater agriculture would need to incur extra cost of salt when irrigating halophytes.

So it would strengthen the cost effectiveness of seawater agri over freshwater agriculture.
why is then B wrong?

[aescano209]

I picked E which is a clear strengthener, but what's a solid reason behind why B doesn't strengthen at all?

It seems that if halophyte requires salt to thrive, then it strengthens the conclusion that seawater agriculture of halophytes would be cost-effective compared to freshwater agriculture of halophytes. Because unlike seawater agriculture, the freshwater agriculture would need to incur extra cost of salt when irrigating halophytes.

So it would strengthen the cost effectiveness of seawater agri over freshwater agriculture.
why is then B wrong?

Hey, I know I'm not an instructor but the reason I saw B as wrong is because it added another necessity for having halophytes. My thinking with this one is that sure they can tolerate salt, but they actually require salt as well, I thought of this as possibly weakening the argument given that it adds a possible (assumed) cost of having to get salt to satisfy the halophytes requirements. And if the people using this halophyte have to get salt (which we wouldn't know the price of) this could possibly detract from being cost-effective. At worst though, even if we were to say this answer choice is irrelevant, it for sure doesn't strengthen the argument of cost-effectiveness.

[judrick5]

Can someone please explain why E is correct?

I can understand why E would be correct, if the stimulus mentioned that desert regions grow plants, like halophytes, that can be irrigated by seawater. However, if we are not told that they can, its irrelevant if pumping water for irrigation is one of the largest cost....

So I was expecting the answer to say something like "the plants grown in desert regions can be irrigated by seawater...."

[maryadkins]

Fair enough! But turns out that isn't the assumption the argument is focusing on. So if you stick with it and it's not addressed in the answer choices, you are left with nothing and have gotten nowhere.

The question is whether it is going to be cost-effective or not. And that hinges on what OTHER costs are. (E) is the one that addresses that.

As for the earlier question in the thread about (B), (B) isn't about cost at all.