#6- Government official: A satisfactory way of eliminating

[srcline@noctrl.edu]

Hello

Can someone please explain why B is the correct answer as opposed to E.

Thankyou
Sarah

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi Sarah,

Thanks for your question. Generally speaking, we need a bit more input from you before we delve into a discussion of a particular LR question. Ultimately, it won't be us who are taking the test; it's you! Our goal is to help you cultivate the analytical ability to approach these questions on your own, which is why you need to help us help you first.

Here's what I'd like you to do:

• 1. Describe your approach to the stimulus. Did you understand the argument, if any, from a structural standpoint? What is the conclusion, and what evidence is the author using in support of that conclusion?
  
  2. Did you prephrase an answer to the question in the stem? If so, what was your prephrase?
  
  3. What exactly made the two answer choices you have listed particularly attractive? Did you use any question type-specific test (e.g. Assumption Negation Technique) to differentiate between them?

Thanks,

[LSATQUEEN180]

When attempting this problem type, which I believe is a role question, you need to identify the parts within the stimulus. The first sentence is the conclusion and what follows all support why the conclusion is true in their own ways. The first support, second & third sentence, shows why receiving food from other countries can harm us; the two reasons they mention are a lack of self sufficiency and the harm to local producers. Then the forth sentence shows that because of inflation food prices will raise anyway.

The goal here is to prove the conclusion, which states that there isn't a simple way to resolve the food shortage and they gave two examples to prove that.

Therefore, making B the best answer.

E is wrong because the claim in question is not supported by what E is pointing to. In fact, those are two separate arguments all in support for the conclusion not for each other.

[LSATQUEEN180]

When attempting this problem type, which I believe is a role question, you need to identify the parts within the stimulus. The first sentence is the conclusion and what follows all support why the conclusion is true in their own ways. The first, second & third sentence, shows why receiving food from other countries can harm us; the two reasons they mention are a lack of self sufficiency and the harm to local producers. Then the forth sentence shows that because of inflation food prices will raise anyway.

The goal here is to prove the conclusion, which states that there isn't a simple way to resolve the food shortage and they gave two examples to prove that.

Therefore, making B the best answer.

E is wrong because the claim in question is not supported by what E is pointing to. In fact, those are two separate arguments all in support for the conclusion not for each other.

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, LSATQueen!

Good analysis.

This is a Method of Reasoning-Argument Part question.

The statement in question is a premise.

What does a premise do? It supports!

This allows you to eliminate answer choices (C) and (E).

The second step is to make sure that the answer indicates the correct conclusion. You do a good job identifying the first sentence as the main conclusion.

You're correct that (B) is the only answer choice that describes the conclusion correctly.