#13 - Researchers have studied the cost-effectiveness of

[Brook Miscoski]

Ericau02,

My own preprhase is a little less precise. Mainly--are there other big differences between fresh water and salt water that we might care about? That's a really simple prephrase to reach, since it states only the obvious--there may be differences between these two things that haven't been discussed. To strengthen the argument, we will have to minimize the importance of those differences, or make the difference beneficial.

(A) increases the difference to disfavor salt--bad.
(B) that's awesome, but it doesn't address a difference.
(C)introduces another cost for salt--bad
(D) introduces other cost differences without explanation--could be bad.
(E) indicates that the cost savings is very important, minimizing the importance of other factors. Not proof, but we'll take it.

Adapting yourself for the LSAT can be very frustrating. One response is to get angry at the test and the techniques that have been proven to beat the test, but that approach will not help you improve. It's okay to entertain it for a bit here and there to let off steam, so I am not criticizing you. Sometimes someone with alot of experience on the test will see something that can feel frustrating because of the distance between that and your own preparation. Just keep in mind that you are trying to reach your own interpretation and application of technique that will help you succeed. I hope that my example of using the simplest prephrase can help you, but also read other's prephrases and try to benefit from them over time.

[180bound]

Hi,

I am still confused here. One of the explanations offered was that: "Answer choice (E) addresses this assumption with new information that indicates that the costs of pumping fresh water is proportionately very expensive. In other words, dramatically reducing this cost would be likely to offset the lower yields...."

I understand how E would make sense IF we knew that the cost was being decreased and how it would offset low yields, but I guess I'm confused because I must be missing the piece in this problem that indicates that there WAS a decrease in cost that would make the price of pumping water relevant?

[Adam Tyson]

Remember that in any Strengthen question, 180bound, we are not looking to prove the conclusion, but only to help it. All we need here is some evidence that lends a little support to the claim that seawater agriculture near sea level would be cost-effective. We learned that it is much cheaper to pump water for this type of agriculture. So, if we add to that a premise that pumping costs are one of the largest cost factors for agriculture, and we know that is it much cheaper to do that for seawater ag at seal level, doesn't that lend a lot of support to the claim that it would be cost-effective? Reducing a major cost item by a substantial amount certainly belongs in the "plus" column for this argument, although it is not enough to prove the conclusion.

It looks like you are analyzing this by looking at it in the past tense - "did this actually happen?" But this argument is not about what did happen in the past - it's about what could happen in the future. It should be cost-effective, rather than it is or was cost-effective. With this new information, we should feel just a little bit more convinced that we would get that result.

[180bound]

Thanks that definitely helped. This was one of those I had to let marinate for a day or so then come back to with with fresh eyes.