#21 - Farmer: Farming with artificial fertilizers, though

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[Lsat180Please]

Would D be the correct answer if it said "takes for granted the possibility that... " instead of "overlooks the possibility that..."? I got to B by process of elimination but I do not necessarily understand why it is right. Could you explain that as well? thanks!!!

[LSATwhizkid00]

I got this question right the first time, but wrong on BR.

When I was determining whether this was a strong or weak argument, I thought it was a weak argument because it negates the
sufficient condition "the current popular practice of organic farming must not spread any further". This phrase is the negation of the sufficient condition in the second sentence.

AC D appears to me to correctly articulate the idea that negating the sufficient condition does not produce anything. I don't see how AC B is correct.

[Ben DiFabbio]

Hey there!

If D) were the same except we substituted "takes for granted" in place of "overlooks," it would still not capture the flaw in the argument.

The flaw is the shift in meaning between a key phrase in the premise ["if ALL farmers were to practice organic farming"] and the conclusion ["organic farming...spread any further"]. Knowing that organic farming "spread any further" is not enough to guarantee that "all farmers" would practice organic farming.

Let's take the modified answer choice (D'): Takes for granted that something that would follow if all farmers did organic farming would still follow even if *not all farmers did organic farming.*

This answer would fail on the (*asterisked*) final clause because the argument does not take for granted that not all farmers would do organic farming. In fact, the flaw in the argument is that the farmer totally ignored the possibility that some farmers might not do organic farming even if the practice spread a bit further.

This brings us to answer choice (B). The flaw is that the farmer fallaciously assumed that organic farming spreading any further = all farmers would do organic farming. Another way of saying this is the farmer overlooked the possibility that many (i.e. at least some) "farmers will choose not to adopt it."

I hope that helps!

- Ben

[klaq15]

This is maybe an overly technical question, but how can organic farming "spread" without people adopting it? By definition, if it's spreading, doesn't that mean people are adopting it?

[Adam Tyson]

That's true, klaq15, but that's not the issue here. The author claims that if ALL farmers went organic, we wouldn't have enough food. That's a good argument against ALL farmers adopting the practice, but does that mean that we couldn't have MORE farmers doing it and still be okay? Perhaps we could handle a 25% increase in organic farming and still produce enough food overall, so long as not every farmer adopts the practice?

Answer B is all about pointing out the possibility that we have not yet reached the tipping point where any more organic farming is too much. It could continue to spread, with MORE farmers adopting it, as long as not EVERY farmer does so.

[hope]

Could this be said to be a False Dilemma wrapped up within a conditional stimulus with Stim asserting that the ONLY way to have enough produce is to stop the spread of organic farming? Essentially, B asserts that there is another way to stop the practice, namely not all farmers will adopt it. That is something that the author overlooked. Let me know if I am even close in my determination. Thanks.

[evelineliu]

Hi Hope,

The farmer's argument is flawed because he is saying the trend of organic farming must not spread any further. However, organic farming can spread a little bit, but farming overall will still be able to meet the demands of the world's population. For example, let's say organic farms increased from 20-25%, but maybe the 75% of farmers who still use artificial fertilizers can still harvest enough food to support the population.

Hope that helps,
Eveline

[Becca1924]

The way I thought about this question ie: how I justified D is that the author's strong premise in the second sentence will surely follow if the practice spreads, even if only by one farm. But this might just be me reading into it. I know that all farmers =/= more farmers than now and I think that's the central flaw. Does the author really assume that all farmers will be organic if the practice spreads further? I usually expect people to be smart which is why I often miss flaw questions.

[Robert Carroll]

Becca1924,

See if you agree with me here: the author thinks that, if all farmers used organic farming, they would be unable to produce enough food. So "not producing enough food" is a consequence that would surely follow if all farmers adopted the practice of organic farming. The author concludes that organic farming should not spread any further; i.e., no one more should do it, because if everyone did it, it would lead to the bad consequences for food production. So, the author thinks that the bad consequences for food production are a danger even now, before all farmers have adopted it.

In conclusion, wouldn't we agree with this at this point: "the author believes that a consequence that would surely follow if all farmers adopted the practice of organic farming would still ensue even if not all of them did."

So that's what the author's doing. Answer choice (D) says that the author is overlooking that possibility. That's just about the opposite of what the author did, so that can't be the answer.

Robert Carroll