Question Type:
Necessary Assumption
Stimulus Breakdown:
Planting based on moon > Not planting based on moon
The moon has nothing to do with plant growth.
Gardeners who don't plant based on the moon instead plant during Spring's first warm spell. A frost then causes problems.
Therefore, moon-based planting are less likely to have frost problems.
Answer Anticipation:
Really complicated argument. However, the conclusion connects planting based on the moon with being less harmed by frost. All we know about the moon-based plants are that they do better. That could be for any number of reasons other than they don't get hit by frost (maybe the moon people are more attuned to nature and thus care for their plants better).
Since the argument itself doesn't connect the moon-planted plants with frost, the correct answer will have to connect those ideas. It probably won't do it directly (this is question 23, after all). Instead, it'll connect it to what we know about frost damage - it happens often to plants that are planted after the first warm snap.
Putting those together, I'm expecting the answer to state that using the phases of the moon to decide when to plant generally results in the plants being planted later in the Spring than the first warm spell.
Correct answer:
(A)
Answer choice analysis:
(A) Boom. This answer choice connects using the moon to determine your planting schedule with planting after the other plants. If we negate it - Using the phases of the moon usually leads to gardeners planting around the same time or earlier than those planting during the warm spell - it kills the argument because these plants will then be subjected to and killed by the frost snap.
(B) There does not need to be a causal relationship between the moon and frost in order for the moon to guide gardeners to better outcomes.
(C) While this is one potential explanation for why they lose fewer plants, it's not one that definitely has to happen. As such, it's not a necessary explanation.
(D) Degree/scope. This answer choice is way too strong ("cannot", "unless"). There's no reason to think, based on this argument, that understanding why something works is necessary to it working. Even if the moon gardeners (yes, that's a thing now) have no idea why their method works, if it works, it works.
(E) Out of scope. While this answer suggests that it's better to plant after the first warm spell, it's by no means necessary to prove that, so it's not necessary for the argument. Additionally, their planting habits may be guided by something other than a desire to survive a cold snap.
Takeaway/Pattern:
Use the conclusion to guide you to what's relevant. It's normal for the LSAT to bury the lede under a lot of confusing information. Focus on the conclusion and the information that leads to it.
#officialexplanation