Q10 - Godinez: In the past, land was sometimes measured by

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
ID the Conclusion

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: People had to invent a new way to measure land when land uses diversified.
Evidence: Plow time didn't help us know how many apartment complexes a piece of land could hold.

Answer Anticipation:
The conclusion is prefaced by the word "Therefore", which always indicates a conclusion. The word "Thus" similarly indicates a conclusion. But the 3rd sentence uses a "but/yet/however" pivot, which is telling us that THIS is now the foreground of the discussion. The second sentence is not a subsidiary conclusion. It has nothing to do with supporting the idea that "we needed a new way to measure land".

We just need to find whichever answer choice has the most equivalent meaning to the last sentence.

Correct Answer:
E

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Last sentence isn't about "easier" to measure.

(B) Last sentence isn't about "more accurate".

(C) This doesn't sound like the last sentence at all.

(D) This sounds like a summary of the entire paragraph. The last sentence says nothing about "plow time".

(E) Yup, this means the same as the last sentence.

Takeaway/Pattern: It's almost unthinkable that the Main Conclusion on an ID the Conclusion would be the LAST idea, prefaced by a "Therefore". But LSAT is aware of their own formulas and they try to throw us an exception now and then. When we see "but/yet/however" in a paragraph, it almost always means "what came before was background/counterpoint ... what comes now is the author's argument". Then we have to use context clues to determine whether we got (conc, then prem) or (prem, then conc). Here, they give us a clear context clue that it's (prem, then conc) because the 2nd idea has "Therefore" in front of it.

#officialexplanation