Q22

[nlynes]

Is B the correct answer choice because of line 44 to 47, where it states, "Researchers have concluded that this is because fields farmed for many years are overrun with aggressive disease organism"? I can see how that makes perfect sense but how are we supposed to know that the "nearby farms" line 44 is referring to plots that have been out of production for 20 years and not land that was currently in use.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Nick

[ohthatpatrick]

This whole passage is a bit of a train-wreck, when it comes to clearly understanding the different soil plots being discussed.

In paragraph 2, we get a former cornfield divided into 20 plots, but we really have 4 categories of what researchers were investigating:

"Control plots"
- plots that were re-sown with corn
- plots that were sown with nothing

"Experimental plots"
- plots that were sown with mix of native plants
- plots that were sown with mix of native plants AND clover/toadflax

In paragraph 3, they start telling us that on some of the Experimental plots (they don't tell us whether it was the ones with clover/toadflax, without, or both), they added soil from nearby land that had been taken out of production 20 years earlier.

So really we have
"Experimental plots"
- plots that were sown with mix of native plants
- plots that were sown with mix of native plants AND clover/toadflax
- plots that were sown with mix of native plants (and maybe clover/toadflax) AND sown with soil from nearby land that has had 20 yrs. to hit "later stages of natural soil development".

This last category is referred to as the "enriched" plots. Line 42 is saying the enriched plots did better than unenriched (#1 and 2 in our list of Experimental plots), but worse than the nearby land. "Nearby land" = line 36, the land taken out of production 20 years earlier.

As you said, line 44 is then where we get the justification for (B).

And as I said, this passage is really hard to read, once we get to paragraphs 2 and 3, because the author keeps referring backwards to concepts he's mentioned, but using often confusing terminology to do so.

In Paragraph 2, he uses "fewer seed varieties" / "broadest seed varieties" / and "control plots" to refer back to his different categories.

In Paragraph 3, he uses "enriched" vs. "non-enriched" and "nearby land" as the keywords to refer back to his different categories.

One very subtle clue that his reference to nearby land in line 44 is a specific call-back, not just vague wording, is that he says "THE nearby land".

If he weren't referring back to a previously mentioned "nearby land", he would have just said "those growing naturally on nearby land".

You can tell when it comes down to "the" or no-"the", that we have reached a point of awfulness.

Hope this helps.

[rinagoldfield]

Here's another way to break this down I developed this during my curriculum training as an instructor for Manhattan LSAT.

22. (B)
Question type: Identification

We should seek the answer to this identification question in paragraph 3, since this is where the author discusses the process of adding healthy soil to damaged land. Lines 45-50 state that "fields farmed for many years are overrun with aggressive disease organisms" and lack beneficial organisms. The author concludes that heavily farmed soil is less supportive of growth because it contains so many disease organisms and so few beneficial ones.The correct answer choice should capture this conclusion.

(A) is unsupported; the land lacks beneficial microorganisms, not nutrients.

(B) is supported by the passage and is the correct answer.

(C) is out of scope for this particular question. The passage does describe problems caused overfertilization for native plant growth. However, the author gives a very specific reason why land that had been out of production for 20 years supports growth better than land enriched with that soil_ the balance of disease and beneficial organisms. Overfertilization is not connected to this reason.

(D) is a contradictory interpretation. The land that has been out of production contains rather than lacks beneficial organisms.

(E) is unsupported. The land that has been taken out of production may still harmful organisms that attack plant roots, but it was the harmful organisms in the overproduced land that hindered plant growth.

[isaac.botier]

And another!

22. (B)
Question Type: Identification (44-47)
This question requires that we identify the explanation for why native plant varieties grew better when sown on land that had been out of production for 20 years than when sown on the plots enriched with soil taken from that land. After discussing the seed differences in enriched plots, unenriched plots, and those growing naturally on nearby land, lines 44-47 provide the explanation that "fields farmed for many years are overrun with aggressive disease organisms" which is expressed in answer choice (B).

(A) is an unsupported interpretation. (A) is tempting because the land is lacking beneficial mycorrizha (lines 47-50), however the mycorrizha aren’t nutrients!

(C) is an unsupported interpretation. Overfertilization is mentioned as a reason for the proliferation of thistles (lines 9-12).

(D) is a unsupported interpretation. We were told in lines 44-50 that the land that had been farmed for many years was lacking in fungi and other beneficial organisms, not that the land that had been out of production was lacking.

(E) is a contradictory interpretation. The organisms are described as being beneficial on line 39. Also, this does not explain why the native plant varieties grew better when sown on land that had been out of production for 20 years.

[BarryM800]

I'm still confused by this question. ¶3 discusses the effect of introducing "beneficial microorganisms," which include "nematodes, fungi, and other beneficial microorganisms associated with later stages of natural soil development." Such "beneficial microorganisms" were taken from "soil from nearby land that had been taken out of production 20 years earlier." So it sounds to me this is a land that underwent the natural restoration without human acceleration, though it does it gradually over time ("20 years").

Line 41, "The seeds sown on these enriched plots have fared better than seeds sown on the unenriched plots, but still not as well as those growing naturally on the nearby land" involves three plots of land: #1, unenriched plots; #2, enriched plots scattered with soil from nearby land that had been taken out of production 20 years earlier; #3, nearby land where those enriched soil came from. Then, the author offered two comparisons: (I) #2 fared better than #1; (II) #2 fared not as well as #3.

However, the author only explains the first comparison (I), i.e., unenriched v. enriched: "Fields farmed for many years are overrun with aggressive disease organisms, while, for example, beneficial mycorrhiza - fungi that live symbiotically on plant roots and strengthen them against the effects of disease organisms - are lacking." The author did not offer an explanation for the second comparison (II), but we can assume that since the enriched soil came from the original land so the original land would of course have more of these beneficial microorganisms.

This question stem specifically asks about the second comparison (II) "native plant varieties grew better when sown on land that had been out of production for 20 years than when sown on the plots enriched with soil taken from that land." But the correct answer choice (B) talks about the unenriched land, which is not involved in the comparison. Thanks!

[Misti Duvall]

I'm still confused by this question. ¶3 discusses the effect of introducing "beneficial microorganisms," which include "nematodes, fungi, and other beneficial microorganisms associated with later stages of natural soil development." Such "beneficial microorganisms" were taken from "soil from nearby land that had been taken out of production 20 years earlier." So it sounds to me this is a land that underwent the natural restoration without human acceleration, though it does it gradually over time ("20 years").

Line 41, "The seeds sown on these enriched plots have fared better than seeds sown on the unenriched plots, but still not as well as those growing naturally on the nearby land" involves three plots of land: #1, unenriched plots; #2, enriched plots scattered with soil from nearby land that had been taken out of production 20 years earlier; #3, nearby land where those enriched soil came from. Then, the author offered two comparisons: (I) #2 fared better than #1; (II) #2 fared not as well as #3.

However, the author only explains the first comparison (I), i.e., unenriched v. enriched: "Fields farmed for many years are overrun with aggressive disease organisms, while, for example, beneficial mycorrhiza - fungi that live symbiotically on plant roots and strengthen them against the effects of disease organisms - are lacking." The author did not offer an explanation for the second comparison (II), but we can assume that since the enriched soil came from the original land so the original land would of course have more of these beneficial microorganisms.

This question stem specifically asks about the second comparison (II) "native plant varieties grew better when sown on land that had been out of production for 20 years than when sown on the plots enriched with soil taken from that land." But the correct answer choice (B) talks about the unenriched land, which is not involved in the comparison. Thanks!

It might be helpful to take another look back at the third paragraph. The passage does make a comparison between the enriched land and the land where the enriched soil came from. It's directly before the sentence you've noted about aggressive disease organisms. The first part of that sentence starts with "[r]esearchers have concluded that this is because," which references the comparison in the previous sentence between the enriched land and the land where the enriched soil originated.

Hope this helps.