Q23 - Agricultural economist: Over the

[Celeste757]

hello!

Just wondered why D is in correct here.

i saw the argument as:

(increases have ceased/usable farmland is at max eff) --> further increases will be difficult

further increases will be difficult + demand increasing --> severe shortage likely

so E is correct and that makes sesne - further increases will be difficult IS an intermediate conclusion

for my own peace of mind though, why is D wrong? D says that it is a prediction for which the first claim is offered as justification. this seems also true to me.

thanks.......

[theaether]

Yes, you have correctly identified it as the intermediate conclusion. Why is it not D? Breaking down the wording: It is indeed a prediction, but is the economist's first claim really the primary justification for it?

Increases have virtually ceased, therefore, further increases will be difficult. (Is this true per se? I stopped making money therefore making more money will be difficult. Maybe I took a long vacation but now I'm rejoining the workforce.)

versus

Most usable farmland is already farmed with near-maximal efficiency, therefore, further increases will be difficult.

Which justification do you think is better? I think the second one would be the "primary justification" that answer (D) is looking for. Unfortunately, (D) proposes that the first claim is the justification.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Increases have virtually ceased, therefore, further increases will be difficult. (Is this true per se? I stopped making money therefore making more money will be difficult. Maybe I took a long vacation but now I'm rejoining the workforce.)

versus

Most usable farmland is already farmed with near-maximal efficiency, therefore, further increases will be difficult.

Which justification do you think is better? I think the second one would be the "primary justification" that answer (D) is looking for. Unfortunately, (D) proposes that the first claim is the justification.

Nice work on answer choice (D). Let me just point out something else that I used here. Frequently on Analyze the Argument questions (those that include Identify the Conclusion questions and Determine the Function questions) we see a structure that is utilized here. Now I won't guarantee it as 100% reliable, but it's something that I would use to guide my thinking here.

We often see the form

________ : ____________ .

When this happens, it usually presents the conclusion before the colon or semicolon and the evidence for why it's true after the colon or semicolon.

This argument definitely is structured to prove the claim that a severe worldwide grain shortage is likely. The evidence for why that's true is twofold; demand is growing and further increases wil be difficult. It just so happens that the latter part is supported with evidence, making it an intermediate (subsidiary) conclusion. Best expressed in answer choice (E).

(A) is true until it states that neither supports the other. In fact there are two conclusions drawn but one does support the other.
(B) is not true. The main conclusion is a prediction, not a causal explanation.
(C) is not true. It is not a premise, nor is it the only support for the main conclusion.
(D) should have said that the primary justification was the following claim - not the first claim.

Hope that helps!