#10 - Peter: Because the leaves of mildly drought-stressed

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Method of Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (E)

Since insects prefer to feed on the leaves of abundantly watered plants, Peter argues that farmers should only water their crops enough to avoid drought-related damage. Jennifer adds that drought-stressed plants can also develop pesticidal toxins to provide additional defense against insects, which strengthens Peter’s conclusion. Because Jennifer’s observation is only relevant to Peter’s conclusion and neither depends nor is dependent upon the rest of his claims, she provides independent grounds for that conclusion. Answer choice (E) offers the best description of this function and is therefore correct.

Answer choice (A): Jennifer offers information that only supports Peter’s conclusion, not each of the claims made in his argument. This answer choice goes too far and is incorrect.

Answer choice (B): Even though Peter’s conclusion is strengthened by the additional evidence offered by Jennifer, there is no reason to believe that Peter’s argument depends on that evidence. Even if drought-stressed plants did not produce pesticidal toxins, Peter’s conclusion would still be valid. This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (C): Jennifer does not explain any of Peter’s premises. She merely provides support for his conclusion. This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (D): Jennifer’s claim does not undermine Peter’s conclusion – it provides additional support for it. This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. See discussion above.

[Legalistic]

Is the reason why Peter's conclusion is strengthened by Jennifer's is because with Peter saying that to minimize crop damage farmer's should only water enough to ensure no substantial threat. The threat in this case would be a lot of insects feeding on abundantly watered plants. So if they are not abundantly watered, and only watered enough so there is no "threat" (insects) to the growth of it, then Jennifer's claim that a mildly drought-stressed plant will divert a small amount of its resources to the development of pesticidal toxins (so no insects on drought-stressed plants) strengthens Peter's conclusion but by offering independent grounds for that conclusion (E).

Am I understanding this correctly? Also, I am a little confused about the Jennifer's part because it doesn't mention anything about watering drought-stressed plants? It just talks about the diversion of resources - does this matter at all? Am I just over thinking this because I've been re-reading it over and over to understand it?

Please help! I'm struggling to understand this stimulus.

[James Finch]

Hi Legalistic,

This is a causal stimulus, where Peter is trying to show that watering only enough as needed is more beneficial to a plant overall than abundantly watering. His example is about the toughness of the leaves and the attraction that has to pests, and Jennifer strengthens Peter's argument by showing another example of same cause, same effect: not only do the thicker leaves discourage pests, but plants watered less also develop pesticidal toxins, so another example of less watering leading to fewer pest problems. "Drought-stressed" implies under-watered plants.

(E) reflects this idea with slightly different language: "same cause, same effect" definitely falls under the "independent grounds" label.

Hope this clears things up!

[bonnie_a]

Hello, I understood how Jennifer's argument strengthens Peter's argument but I also had another different approach to understanding her argument. I somehow first thought what Jennifer says provides a third new variable that is causing insects to feed on the leaves of abundantly watered plants. To put it differently, perhaps the reason why they are not as preferred is because they do not have toxins that push insects away, not because they are less tough in texture. I know we aren't supposed to refute/question the validity of premises ("because the leaves are tougher in texture, insects prefer to...") but I thought I could in this case because it is something that's been proposed or argued by someone.

[bonnie_a]

Hello, I understood how Jennifer's argument strengthens Peter's argument but I also had another different approach to understanding her argument. I somehow first thought what Jennifer says provides a third new variable that is causing insects to feed on the leaves of abundantly watered plants. To put it differently, perhaps the reason why they are not as preferred is because they do not have toxins that push insects away, not because they are less tough in texture. I know we aren't supposed to refute/question the validity of premises ("because the leaves are tougher in texture, insects prefer to...") but I thought I could in this case because it is something that's been proposed or argued by someone.

Sorry, I meant "why they are preferred"

[Adam Tyson]

That's one way to look at it, bonnie, and you don't have to refute the premise about preferring the leaves that are not as tough in order to get there. Saying that insects also prefer leaves that won't kill them adds new evidence without necessarily refuting the old evidence. We can have multiple causes for a single effect (even though LSAT authors often behave as if that's not the case).