There are 1.3 billion cows worldwide, and this population is growing

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

When I was about 10 years old, my buddy David Holmlund and I heard a news story about methane production from cows and thought it was the height of comedy. How, exactly, did the scientists measure the amount of methane gas emitted per cow? We assumed that some sort of balloon was involved, and a very steady scientist’s hand. I still do suppose a balloon is involved, come to think of it. How else would this study be possible? I would love it if someone could sort me out on this.

Unfortunately, this question isn’t about my balloon assumption. Instead, the argument is about whether or not we could stop the bovine fouling of our air by changing cows’ diets. The conclusion is the last sentence: “Methane production from cows could be kept in check if cows were given better-quality diets.”

The first sentence says the population of cows is growing to keep pace with the demand for meat and milk. The world population is about to cross the 7 billion mark. Feeding 7 billion people requires a lot of goddamn cheeseburgers, whether the beef is grass-fed or not. So my objection to the logic is this: If the population of cows keeps growing to keep pace with human demand, might the methane problem also keep growing, even if we give them a better diet? A better diet might reduce methane per cow, but would do nothing to affect the number of cows. And the number of cows seems to be the real problem here.

The question asks us to support the conclusion of the argument. The right answer might somehow defend against my devastating objection above.

A) Okay, this is a solid answer. Not only do better diets reduce methane per cow, they also increase meat and milk production per cow, thus decreasing the number of cows required to support the human race’s irresponsible population growth. This defends against my predicted weakener, so I like this answer.

B) If anything, this could only weaken the idea that better diets would change the methane problem. We’re looking for a strengthener. This is out.

C) Please don’t pick answers like this. The conclusion was theoretical: If we gave cows better diets, we could curb the methane problem. It’s entirely irrelevant whether farmers are actually willing to do this. Notice how A supports the conclusion whether or not farmers are actually willing to make the change in diet. The practical problem is irrelevant since the conclusion is qualified by “if we gave cows better diets.” This is out.

D) Meat vs. milk is totally irrelevant. No way. If you picked this answer, I really don’t think you’re paying attention to what the argument is trying to prove.

E) Just like answer D, the methane vs. carbon dioxide issue is totally irrelevant.

Answer A is the only answer that strengthens the idea that better diets will help the methane problem. So our answer is A.­