Q27

[evelina.chang]

I just don't understand this very well. I know that the answer should have some sort of double pronged approach, but I cant really see how (B) is the best answer. :/

[asdarrow]

I also had troublewith this question. It would be great if someone who understands the logic behind the right answer could explain it.I went with C for this question. I was looking for an answer where mutiple parties were either banding together or ganging up on another (the thistles).B is confusing! Please explain!

[eunjung.shin]

I pondered between B and D and ended with D. Now I know why B is right. Let me share what I think.

In simple terms,

In B,
Defending candidates= restoring overproduced land
Rival party= weeds like thistle

D is wrong because it says "attack" rather than "defend" and also " who support" is unsupported.

I stand to be corrected by the experts.

[giladedelman]

Yes, you've got it! No need to be corrected.

Look folks, this is one of the more ridiculous RC questions I've ever seen, even by the LSAT's standards, so don't get too bent out of shape if you got it wrong.

It's important that we try to boil down the key aspects of the process described in the passage. To me, the last line really sums it up: "diversity can be restored more quickly to damaged land if beneficial microorganisms are 'sown' systematically into the soil along with a wide variety of native plant seeds." So the process is all about distributing stuff that will help defend plants against the nasty thistle weeds.

(B) is the best answer because the editorials defending candidates against attacks by journalists are analogous to the beneficial microorganisms that defend plants against attacks by weeds.

None of the other answers involve distributing some kind of protective device:

(A) talks about encouraging people to switch allegiance. There's no switching going on in the passage example.

(C) talks about discouraging people from voting. Discouraging participation doesn't link up with anything from the passage.

(D) is about "attacking certain public figures," which, again, does not match up with defending the plants. Also, "certain public figures" is narrower than the array of harmful organisms we're dealing with in the passage.

(E) talks about creating some kind of internal division; the passage isn't talking about turning the harmful organisms against one another.

Hope that clear this one up for you!

[CAIWeigreace]

I think the way of thinking it through could also be:

We need to strengthen the rival to thistles. The rival (our darling) identified here is the variety of species sown to the ground. In order to strengthen our darling, we need to defend it against attacks from other parties.

Hence, by using microorganism more systematically, we defend the variety of native plants against disease organisms. In this way, we help our darling fight with thistles.

Disease organism here = random journalists...

[rinagoldfield]

Here's the way I broke it down as part of my curriculum training to be a Manhattan LSAT instructor.

27. (B)
Question type: Inference and synthesis

This is a tricky question! We are asked to apply our understanding of the Netherlands study to a whole new scenario. More specifically, we need to consider the process of curtailing the growth of thistles, and identify an analogous situation. Before examining the answer choices, try to articulate a concise summary of this process. The process could be outlined like this:

"¢ Introduce natural soil to restore the balance microorganisms underground
"¢ Sow a broad variety of native plant seeds above ground
"¢ As the native plants begin to flourish, thistles will be forced out

In other words, scientists suppressed the growth of thistles not by attacking the thistles themselves, but by supporting the growth of other species.

All of the answer choices concern the efforts of a newspaper to prevent Party A from winning a majority of seats in the legislature. Let’s see which method used by the newspaper is most similar to the process identified above.

(A) seems like it could fit. The newspaper undermines Party A by attempting to syphon votes away from it and towards a rival party. In other words, the newspaper bolsters an alternative to Party A, just as the Dutch scientists supported the growth of alternative species to thistles. Keep this answer choice for now.

(B) also seems like it could fit. Like answer choice (A), answer choice (B) describes a process of building support for an alternative to Party A. This approach is similar to the Dutch scientist’s process of curtailing the growth of thistles by supporting the growth of diverse species. Keep this answer choice for now, too.

(C) is less appealing than (A) or (B). Encouraging voters to stay home doesn’t clearly parallel the process of supporting microorganism diversity. Eliminate this answer choice.

(D) describes a process very different than the one used by the Dutch scientists. In this answer choice, the newspaper attacks Party A in editorial articles. The Dutch scientists never directly attacked the thistles. Eliminate this answer choice.

(E) also describes a process dissimilar to the one used to eliminate thistles. The newspaper tries to harm Party A by widening its internal divisions. The scientists described in the passage did not try to harm the thistles directly, but rather supported alternatives to it. Eliminate this answer choice.

We are left with answer choices (A) and (B). (B) is a better match because it describes the newspaper as directly nurturing an alternative to Party A. Answer choice (A), on the other hand, describes the newspaper as supporting other parties by redirecting support away from Party A. The Dutch scientists didn’t redirect nutrients away from thistles; rather, they nurtured the growth of other species. (B) is the correct answer.

[isaac.botier]

27. (B)
Question Type: Synthesis (50-58)
For this question we would have to synthesize the information in the last paragraph and find an answer choice that we feel is analogous to the process described. Thankfully we have two sentences near the end of the paragraph that sum up the process for us. The third to last sentence states that "restoring natural plant diversity...hinges on restoring a natural balance of microorganisms in the soil." And the final sentence states "diversity can be restored more quickly to damaged land if beneficial microorganisms are "˜sown’ systematically into the soil along with a wide variety of native plant seeds." Answer choice (B) is most analogous because the editorials are defending the candidates against attacks by broadcast journalists much like the beneficial microorganisms are defending plants against problem weeds. It’s not the ideal answer choice because there is no parallel to the beneficial microorganisms being sown into the soil. However it’s still the best out of the choices we’re given.

(A) is not analogous because there is no parallel for encouraging to switch allegiance in the final paragraph.

(C) is tempting at first, because one can argue that the beneficial microorganisms are discouraging thistles. However, (C) is not analogous because there is no parallel for intending to discourage participation of supporters in the final paragraph. The beneficial microorganisms are not trying to discourage the thistles buddies from supporting the thistles.

(D) is not analogous because there is no parallel for attacking the support in the final paragraph. The beneficial microorganisms are not attacking anything.

(E) is not analogous because there is no parallel for intending to create antagonism. The beneficial microorganisms are not trying to get the harmful organisms to fight (though that would be cool).

[ann8839]

I want to share my understanding of (b)
I thought that answer choice B perfectly fit with the argument core.

A newspaper works to prevent party A (tristle) from winning a majority of seat(proliferate in the land) by publishing editorial defending candidates from a rival party (restoring natural plant diversity) against attack by certain broadcast journalist. (Diseases)

please feel free to comment on my explanation