25. (B)
Question type: Inference
This question asks us to identify the scenario in which the methods of land restoration researched by the Dutch scientists would be LEAST advantageous to use. The answer choices could fall anywhere along a spectrum of advantageous to neutral to disadvantageous. This type of question is best approached through a process of elimination.
(A) describes a circumstance that perfectly lends itself to using the methods of land restoration researched by the Dutch scientists. These methods were designed to restore land that was depleted of its natural nutrients through overproduction. Eliminate this answer choice.
(B) doesn’t clearly describe a good match for the methods researched in the Netherlands study. The author characterizes the process of removing and replacing topsoil as the "quickest way to restore" overproduced land (lines 13-15). In a circumstance in which this quick process could be easily implemented, it would make sense to use it rather than the slower process researched in the Netherlands study. Hold onto this answer choice for now.
(C) describes a circumstance in which the process of land restoration researched in the Netherlands study would clearly be advantageous to use. Eliminate this answer choice.
(D) doesn’t clearly describe a good match for implementing the process of land restoration researched in the Netherlands study. Since the author never discusses a field’s potential to support commercial grasses, the impact of this information is difficult to infer. Hold onto this answer choice for now.
(E) doesn’t clearly describe a good match for the methods of land restoration researched in the Netherlands study. An adjacent cornfield might impact the effectiveness of these methods, but this possibility is never directly discussed. Hold onto this answer choice for now.
We are left with (B), (D), and (E). (B) describes a circumstance in which applying a method of land restoration other than the one researched by the Netherlands study would clearly be advantageous (replacing the topsoil). (D) and (E) describe circumstances in which it is unclear whether the methods researched in the Netherlands study would be advantageous to apply. They are neutral in relation to the study. (B) therefore describes the circumstance in which these methods would be LEAST advantageous to use, and is the correct answer.
LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- rinagoldfield
-
Thanks Received: 309
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 390
- Joined: December 13th, 2011
- This post thanked 1 time.
-
- isaac.botier
-
Thanks Received: 20
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 19
- Joined: October 05th, 2011
- This post thanked 2 times.
Re: Q25
25. (B)
Question Type: Inference (12-15)
For this question we would have to evaluate the answer choices against what we’ve been told in the passage that the Netherlands study’s methods are meant to combat. We know that the impetus for the study was that (i) there are environmental problems resulting from agricultural overproduction, (ii) it would be impractical to remove and replace topsoil on a large scale and (iii) that the natural process would occur "very gradually." Answer choice (B) ends up being the least advantageous because the study is meant to overcome the fact that the topsoil cannot be easily removed and replaced (subpart ii above). If the topsoil could be easily removed and replaced we’re told that would be the quickest way to restore the land.
(A) would be advantageous. If we read from lines 5-8, we see that nutrients in soil that has been in constant agricultural use are depleted, so this is one of the situations that the method of the Netherlands study is meant to combat.
(C) would be advantageous, since we’re told in the first paragraph that much of the land that has been in constant agricultural use has been heavily fertilized.
(D) would be more advantageous than (B) since the experiment contained native grasses so this is a circumstance in which the methods used in the study could be helpful.
(E) would be more advantageous than (B) as it is similar to the conditions of the experiment. The experimental plots were planted next to control plots with corn.
Question Type: Inference (12-15)
For this question we would have to evaluate the answer choices against what we’ve been told in the passage that the Netherlands study’s methods are meant to combat. We know that the impetus for the study was that (i) there are environmental problems resulting from agricultural overproduction, (ii) it would be impractical to remove and replace topsoil on a large scale and (iii) that the natural process would occur "very gradually." Answer choice (B) ends up being the least advantageous because the study is meant to overcome the fact that the topsoil cannot be easily removed and replaced (subpart ii above). If the topsoil could be easily removed and replaced we’re told that would be the quickest way to restore the land.
(A) would be advantageous. If we read from lines 5-8, we see that nutrients in soil that has been in constant agricultural use are depleted, so this is one of the situations that the method of the Netherlands study is meant to combat.
(C) would be advantageous, since we’re told in the first paragraph that much of the land that has been in constant agricultural use has been heavily fertilized.
(D) would be more advantageous than (B) since the experiment contained native grasses so this is a circumstance in which the methods used in the study could be helpful.
(E) would be more advantageous than (B) as it is similar to the conditions of the experiment. The experimental plots were planted next to control plots with corn.
2 posts Page 1 of 1