patto wrote:
Researchers have studied the cost-effectiveness of growing halophytes—salt-tolerant plant species—for animal forage. Halophytes require more water than conventional crops, but can be irrigated with seawater, and pumping seawater into farms near sea level is much cheaper than pumping freshwater from deep wells. Thus, seawater agriculture near sea level should be cost-effective in desert regions although its yields are smaller than traditional, freshwater agriculture.
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument above?
(E) Pumping water for irrigation is proportionally one of the largest costs involved in growing, harvesting, and distributing any forage crop for animals.
azhrhasan wrote:
How's E a strengthener ? It just says that it is one of the largest costs. But there maybe other costs which are higher for seawater agriculture. Please guide.
azhrhasan , we are never told that any costs for seawater are higher than those for conventional freshwater agriculture.
Your argument is very sensible. It is realistic. But it is not supported by a single word in the prompt.
In CR and LR, stay only with the facts that are given to you.
I would avoid focusing on what you do not know and what is not mentioned in the prompt.
Try not to "import" facts that are not in the premises and conclusion.
Doing so plays right into the hands of LSAC.
Having practiced thousands of these questions and taken the LSAT with 50+ of these bad boys, I promise that this approach works:
stay with the text you are given.Sure, there may be other costs that are higher in seawater agriculture than in conventional agriculture.
We don't care about them,
at all, because we know absolutely nothing about them.
We cannot be asked to evaluate something about which we know nothing.
Pretend these other theoretically high seawater agriculture costs don't exist.
They are not mentioned in the prompt and as such the conclusion does not depend on them.We are here to find something that strengthens
the (very specific) conclusion. (E) Pumping water for irrigation is proportionally one of the largest costs involved in growing, harvesting, and distributing any forage crop for animals.
This fact supports the claim of cost-effectiveness in the conclusion.
At every stage of agriculture, pumping fresh water is proportionally one of the largest costs.
If I do this sea level desert seawater agriculture, using "much cheaper" pumped seawater, I save a lot of money at every stage of the process.
If we know (E), then we have strengthened the conclusion.
One of the proportionally largest costs just got a lot cheaper. Sounds cost-effective to me.
I hope that helps.