Q25 - In ancient Mesopotamia, prior to

[kimnamil14]

Hi,

I am debating between A and B. I am not so sure what makes A incorrect. I think A is saying, in other words, that the cultivation of wheat requires more water than does cultivation of barley. If that's correct, then doesn't that support the historians' contention that the decline in wheat production was due to *excessive irrigation*? I feel like B is only supporting the view that the production of barley increased sharply.

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

[giladedelman]

Thanks for your question!

The historians contend that the reason wheat production went down while barley production went up was the accumulation of salt in the soil due to excessive irrigation and lack of drainage.

Why would this be so? What are the historians assuming? Well, if salt residues were responsible for wheat production falling while barley production increased, it must be that the salty soil was more damaging to wheat than to barley.

(B) is correct because it makes the historians' assumption explicit. If barley has much greater resistance to salt in the soil than wheat has, this would explain how the accumulation of salt residues led to diminished wheat production and increased barley production.

(A) is incorrect because "excessive irrigation" means that the crops were getting plenty of water! So the fact that barley requires less water than wheat is out of scope; there's no mention of the Mesopotamians running low on water. Quite the contrary, in fact: they were watering their crops too much.

(C) is incorrect because it doesn't help us explain what happened after 2900 B.C.

(D) actually weakens the argument by presenting an alternative explanation for why wheat production declined.

(E) is kind of a premise booster. Okay, barley became the principal grain, but why did it supplant wheat?

Does that clear this one up for you?

[syousif3]

Can you please elaborate on the argument more? The way I initially understood it was that the decline in wheat production was due to 3 causes
1. excessive irrigation
2. lack of drainage
3.accumulation of salt in the soil

However you stated " the reason wheat production went down while barley production went up was the accumulation of salt in the soil due to excessive irrigation and lack of drainage."

So then how can A be wrong since excessive irrigation caused the decline in wheat production? Wouldnt barley require less water, since excessive irrigation means more water?

[austindyoung]

Can you please elaborate on the argument more? The way I initially understood it was that the decline in wheat production was due to 3 causes
1. excessive irrigation
2. lack of drainage
3.accumulation of salt in the soil

However you stated " the reason wheat production went down while barley production went up was the accumulation of salt in the soil due to excessive irrigation and lack of drainage."

So then how can A be wrong since excessive irrigation caused the decline in wheat production? Wouldnt barley require less water, since excessive irrigation means more water?

So, I'll try to answer your question. Sorry if you were expecting a Geek.

You are correct that there are three causes- but they aren't independent (1)+ (2)+ (3)---> decline in wheat production; as you have listed them- but more like (1) + (2) ---> (3)---> decline in wheat production.

The real issue is the salt.

Excessive irrigation and lack of drainage (1 and 2)- those things can be changed. The accumulation of salt in the soil... You're probably stuck with that.

(A)-So what if barely requires considerably less water that wheat? Does that tell me why wheat production declined?

To be honest- I'm a little confused by the last part of your question. [So then how can A be wrong...]

Also, we don't know if barley requires less water than wheat or not. Like giladedelman stated, it's completely out of scope.

Maybe it would have been equally damaging for barley yields if there was excessive irrigation and lack of drainage as well- but not to worry- it can withstand the presence of salt.

So- if the drainage and irrigation problems are fixed- too bad for wheat. For barley on the other hand, well it has a greater resistance.

Hope that helped some.

[singh.vishalk09]

Real reason why A is wrong because "less" water was never an issue for the decline of Wheat

the three reasons given are excessive irrigation (means water was more than sufficient), Lack of drainage (this excess water of irrigation was not finding its way out) and Salination which was kicking the wheat at the same time

So first two reason may or may not be okay for barley also but B solves the third (salination) problem and hence is the answer.

[WaltGrace1983]

I could be wrong but I don't think its necessarily deleterious to think about the conclusion in terms of there being 3 distinct causes. The conclusion says that the lack of production was "due to excessive irrigation, lack of drainage, and the consequent..." As I said, I could be wrong but either way it doesn't really matter because the answer choices don't reward/punish this kind of thinking anyway.

I also came down to (A) and (B) so I'll give my own analysis in hopes that, if one hasn't already been sufficiently helped by the good analyses above, then maybe another insight will prove advantageous. Plus, writing it out makes me think more about the problem

<2900 BC: lots of wheat
+
<2900 BC: sharp decline in wheat; barley increases sharply
→
Wheat decline was due to (1) excessive irrigation; (2) lack of drainage; and (3) a consequential accumulation of salt

(A) Think about what the answer choice is saying...Barley needs less water than wheat. The historians claim that excessive irrigation was what led to wheat taking a downturn and barley making an upturn. Now you might be thinking - and I did this too - that NEEDING less water means that OVERwatering is a bad thing. This might be right. However, do we know how much water is detrimental to the barley? Maybe barley NEEDS very little water but can HANDLE a lot of water.

The point is that what the plants REQUIRE gives us very little information that could strengthen the claim that barley had a resurgence (and wheat a detriment) because of these three reasons.

[Mab6q]

Dang it LSAT

I missed this question because I ran out of time and fell for A's trap. It's not surprise they put this question last and A as the first answer choice.

[asafezrati]

B is definitely the winner, but I'm still having difficulty with understanding why A is 100% wrong.
Since barley requires less water it is plausible that the farmers in Meso will use less water, thus the excess of water might be mitigated.

[vstoever]

I could see how A strengthens a little bit, because maybe if we use a crop that requires less irrigation, we would not have excessive irrigation (so we would get rid of the first problem: excessive irrigation).

But I think B is a better strengthener because even if it requires less water, if barley can't resist the salt, it would be no better than wheat.

It seems like the main problem is "and the consequent accumulation of salt"

[JeremyK460]

I could see how A strengthens a little bit, because maybe if we use a crop that requires less irrigation, we would not have excessive irrigation (so we would get rid of the first problem: excessive irrigation).

But I think B is a better strengthener because even if it requires less water, if barley can't resist the salt, it would be no better than wheat.

It seems like the main problem is "and the consequent accumulation of salt"

too much water and not enough drainage is relative to whatever is being grown (barley, wheat, whatever)

requiring less water means nothing. wheat takes a gallon of water. barley takes a cup. either way there's still a lack of drainage. the land sucks draining a cup, a gallon, or beyond

so if you replace wheat with barley, barley will still run into the same issues...too much water and not enough drainage.

but the concept of salt accumulation is more vague. so the right answer should touch on that