#24 - Must Be True, Author's Perspective

[Jatt]

I narrowed down the choices to (C) and (E) but ended up picking (E). Why is (C) the correct answer here? Rather, why is (E) not an appropriate answer?

[Adam Tyson]

Hi Jatt. Good question here, in part because I find that there's not a lot of convincing evidence to support answer choice C without a little speculation, in my opinion. Some, but not a lot.

I think you asked the question the right way - it's not "why is C right" but "why is E unacceptable." The answer to that lies in the question type, which is a form of Must Be True.

Just like in Logical Reasoning Must Be True Questions, when we encounter MBT in Reading Comp we have to apply our old friend the Fact Test. That is, we have to rely solely on what we find in the passage to support our answer choice. If we can't point to it and say "there's the proof!" then we have to call the answer a loser and eliminate it from contention.

E fails the Fact Test - there is no support anywhere that we can point to for the idea that predators generally do not harm their host crops. We do have some general info on predator species - look at the end of the second paragraph and you'll find support for the general idea that predator populations tend to rise and fall with the populations of the prey. But then look at the very first line of the passage, and we see that we are only talking about "sometimes" here - sometimes the best approach is to use natural predators rather than pesticides. We don't know that they are generally better, and we certainly don't know that they are generally better because they don't harm the host. In fact, I'm not sure we have any evidence that pesticides harm the host, other than indirectly by allowing the prey to thrive.

Once we eliminate A, B, D and E, C is the only thing left. I don't think it's a great answer, but it has some support. Remember that we aren't picking good answers on the LSAT - we are picking the best answers. Sometimes, the best answers are kind of lousy.

Hope that helped.

[reop6780]

The correct answer is C while I chose answer E.

The question asks what the "author" would agree.

From the beginning of the passage, the author's favorable attitude towards natural predators as a means of controlling pests is clear.

The only concern of answer E would be, "...because they do not harm the crops that their prey feed on," which I could not find proof in the passage.

Still, regarding answer C the author does not mention anything about insecticides or more specifically failure of natural predators.

I really have no idea how answer C is the right answer.

I appreciate your clear explanation a lot

Thank you

[Ron Gore]

Hi Reop,

As you say, the author made clear that in some cases the use of natural predators is the most effective way to eliminate agricultural pests. If that is true, then the author would agree that the natural predators should be tried first when eliminating such pests. This makes sense, because why would a person not use the most effective means to eliminate a pest? Answer choice (C) states this idea. While this was not explicitly stated in the passage, it is implied by the author's statement that sometimes natural predators are most effective. The question is not asking what we can say was stated explicitly in the passage, but rather which answer choice is most clearly consistent with the author's statements.

Regarding answer choice (E), you nailed it when you said that the passage does not discuss predators being more effective because they do not harm the crops. The passage listed some reasons why the predators are more effective, but this information was not provided. And, unlike the information in answer choice (C), we have no basis to infer what effect the predators have on the crops.

Let me know if I can help further.

Ron

[reop6780]

Yes, I understood!

Thanks, Ron.

Hyun

[lilmissunshine]

Hello,

Is (B) incorrect because "beneficial insects" was never mentioned in the passage? Thanks a lot!

[Adam Tyson]

You got it, lilmiss! If we want to infer something based on the passage, we have to rely on the text to do so. If an idea is neither mentioned nor alluded to in the text, then we cannot select that answer as being something we can infer.

Well done!

[ataraxia10]

I agree that E fails the Fact Test, but isn't E mentioning an essential assumption that must be made for the author's argument to make sense? If E wasn't true, then well, the whole argument for natural predators over pesticide would fall apart. I mean, we even have a question (#27) that tests our ability to draw this necessary assumption. I suppose the answer to #27 allows more wiggle room by dictating "without SIGNIFICANT damage to those crops," while E in #24 is very extreme? ("because they do NOT harm the crops")

[Jay Donnell]

Hi ataraxia!

This particular answer, like a huge amount of incorrect choices in MBT/MSS questions within both LR and RC, is eliminated due to words that bring up too much logical force to 'afford' with the evidence we're offered in the stimulus/passage.

The author of this passage offers a lengthy description of one instance in which it seems that letting natural predators do their thing is better than using pesticides, although the pesticide used (parathion) was particularly boneheaded in that it only hurt the 'good' mite and not the 'bad' one.

My issues with D center mainly around two terms/concepts: "generally" and "because they do not harm."

The term 'generally' brings with it an over 50% guarantee of occurrence, and so is as dangerous as picking answer that claims something will happen most of the time, if we only know of one or several actual occurrences.

In this passage, the ONE example given of an effective predator/pest control relationship is consistent with answer choice C, which implies we should only ever consider using pesticides if it has been proven that natural predators were unsuccessful.

That idea, however, can't 'afford' the claim that predators GENERALLY work better than pesticides.

And you're right with the second point, because we can't completely claim that these predators DO NOT harm the crops, as we only can make the safer claim in #27 that both C and T mites can inhabit strawberry plants without 'significant damage to those crops.'

It doesn't look like any previous explanation really hammered home the point of the dangers of 'generally,' so hopefully this explanation can help you here and in many future MBT/MSS questions as well!

[ataraxia10]

Thank you, that was very useful to know--the logical implications of the meaning "generally."