Q22 - When uncontrollable factors such as

[bnuvincent]

I could not decide why B is wrong , could you please explain ?

[noah]

I love this question for some reason.

The stimulus tells us that at those times that some crazy force of nature - like not having any rain - causes crops to fail, we'll see certain businesses (which are named) be unable to sell enough to make a profit.

We can infer (E) - it's provable. If we were to re-write it in the positive, it would read: the effects of a drought might go beyond its impact on a farm's productivity. We can agree with that, since the drought might impact those other businesses. It's a safe and easily defended answer - just the sort of thing a lawyer loves.

Now lets see which answer choice we can not infer...


(A) is reversed logic. Perhaps there's another reason that businesses don't do well - bad management, for example.

(B) is very tempting, however it's incorrect for several reasons. First, a few detail creeps:

- the stimulus tells us that these money problems occur when something like a LACK of rain occurs. (B) simply offers "below average" rainfall. Perhaps that's 1/100 of an inch below average and still enough to have the plants grow.

- the stimulus tells us about certain businesses, not all businesses that sell to farmers. Will pharmacies and insurance companies be hurt by this as well?

- the stimulus tells us that the affected businesses will be unable to make a profit. That doesn't mean they'll LOSE money. Perhaps they'll break even.

And then there's a more overarching problem. Let's imagine I were to tell you (or perhaps confess) that "When drinking too much causes me to act like a fool, I go home in shame." Does this mean drinking too much will cause me to act like a fool? No. It's WHEN drinking causes this foolishness that a lot of stuff will happen. Same thing here. Does a lack of rain definitely cause all those problems? No. Perhaps the farmer wakes us and waters the fields (says the New Yorker with no farming experience).

(C) is tempting, however it's out of scope since the stimulus never speaks about responsibility. Furthermore, we can be responsible for things over which we have no control -- kids! Perhaps the farmer forgot to water the fields.

(D) is a great big extrapolation. Economic crisis?!

[doneill3]

WHAT GOT ME ABOUT THIS (RATHER EASY) QUESTION WAS THAT NOWHERE IN THE STIMULUS did it say "drought." I thought (E) was out-of-scope. How do I avoid this?

[noah]

WHAT GOT ME ABOUT THIS (RATHER EASY) QUESTION WAS THAT NOWHERE IN THE STIMULUS did it say "drought." I thought (E) was out-of-scope. How do I avoid this?

It sounds like you're doing too much of the word matching "game." You want to think about what the words mean, not just what they are. There is no magic bullet here, but keep a close eye on every instance in which you over-eliminate because of out of scope. Necessary assumptions and strengthen/weaken tend to bring in information that can initially smell out of scope.

[doneill3]

^thank you for the response and tip!

[TJG209]

Correct me if i am wrong, but the stimulus just states a bunch of things happening when a drought occurs (equating drought and lack of rain is a reasonable assumption the LSAT makers can expect you to make). So the reasons why A and B are wrong are fairly similar in that we dont know if the diesel fuel suppliers, for example, sell directly to these farmers (from AC A), or make profits directly from farmers' purchases (from AC B). We only know that these businesses lose business/profit when a drought leads to crop failure. so to pick A or B, you are making the assumption that these other businesses are making there profits directly from farmers purchases (they could be indirectly related through the supply chain for example).

This is how i understood the question and the wrong answers, though i dont know if i could explain it well enough in text.