Q11 - Several thousand years ago, people

[ldanny24]

I don't know if its just me but I don't think any of the answer choices here resolve the discrepancy. If you look at E, the words some years after can really throw a person off. The stimulus explicitly says "soon after these people established corn as their staple grain crop", it would be a pretty big step to assume that soon after equates to some years after. I would understand E to be the correct answer if adopting nongrain foods happened alot closer to the adoption of corn rather than a few years. Without any explanation of why these people still stuck with corn during the years previous to the supplementation of nongrain foods, this creates in my opinion a gap in the stimulus that's poorly explained by all the answer choices. Please shine some light.

[maryadkins]

We are asked to explain why people would continue to make corn their staple crop even though it's less nutritious than other crops and so people started having nutrition-related health problems right after they made it their staple.

Anticipating what might explain this, we can predict some answers--maybe they can't afford to grow more nutritious grains (after all, we're told that corn is faster and feeds more people)? Or maybe they figured out a way to address the nutrition problems?

(A) doesn't address the nutrition issue, just tells us that the corn they used produced a lot of food--which we are already told.

(B) is out of scope because we're not concerned with modern varieties. The question is about people several thousand years ago.

(C) doesn't give us a reason why people might have continued to grow corn.

(D) is the opposite of what we want--it suggests it would have been easier to switch to a different crop.

(E) bingo! They figured out a way to solve the nutrition issue by supplementing the corn. Just because it remained their "staple grain" doesn't mean it couldn't be supplemented. This would explain why they continued to make it their staple.

As to your question re: "some," remember that pesky thing about the LSAT--"some" can mean pretty much anything. Some years can mean any number of years--from 2 to however many are possible. This question is a good reminder of that. Since "some years" threw you off because you understood it (as we do in everyday life) to mean a lot of years, star this problem and review it later as a reminder that on the LSAT, "some [amount]" can mean very little or very much.

[ldanny24]

Yeah and I understand the idea that some could really mean 1 - ad infinitum years, the problem I'm having is that even if it were just one year, if nutrition related problems from the corn had occurred soon after, (I think it can be reasonably assumed to be a few weeks or months) there's no reason for these people to continue adopting corn when nongrain supplementation foods were adopted some years later (even if it is one). I'm sure these people had not anticipated nongrain supplementation for them to continue eating corn.

So for example,

These people adopt corn in January 2000 B.C., around March they have health related problems. Next year January 1999 B.C. they start eating nongrain foods to help their diet. There still seems to be a disconnect of why they continued with corn from March 2000 B.C. to January 1999 B.C.

[maryadkins]

(I think it can be reasonably assumed to be a few weeks or months)

Why can this reasonably be assumed?

A sixteen-year-old can say to his parents, "It's stupid to give me a curfew because soon I'm leaving home anyway!" He means two years. In that case, soon does mean years. "Soon" is completely subjective. So don't assume!

Even in your hypo, though, (E) can still work--it doesn't have to perfectly explain away the gap in order to fit the bill--we're asked which answer choice "most helps" explain why they kept growing corn. (E) is the only one that gets us anything workable.

[romanmuffin]

I was stuck between A and E on this one. I chose E, but I feel like A could resolve the paradox. If the variety of corn that the people relied on as their staple grain produced more food than did the ancestors of that variety, can't we say that, for the North Americans, quantity overrode nutrition concerns? Therefore, it would make sense that they would continue to grow the corn?

[jayparkcom]

Here is my 2 cent.
Basically this is the problem:
yes corn is readily available product yet less nutritious than other product.
Yet people have grown it.
Why?

A) it's a trap answer to make you think that "yes, the ancestors like this because it was again more readily available than other product." Again, still it hasn't resolved the problem: malnutrition.
B) This talks about MODERN variety. However, the problem is CONTINUANCE of growing the corn. Just because the MODERN stuff is good that does not mean it has BEEN good stuff.
C) Ok, this makes you that ok, people didn't domesticate animal before but now they do. But we don't know about the latter part. We absolutely have no information that whether the PEOPLE in the stimulus ACTUALLY have been domesticating animals. If you thought this, you are making an unwarranted assumption.
D) Utterly wrong.
E) Yes, if people found something that resolves the malnutrition part, then why not continue growing it?

My thought to answer to above:
I really liked your thoughts! because I never would have thought of it...
however I believe the reason your reasoning is little off is because you are making this assumption that stability outweighs the malnutrition aspect. But, for all we know, causing malnutrition is the worst thing that could ever happen to a country. hope this helps

[amandarruff]

I got stuck on D, which I have to assume is true. Maybe I am using to much of my farmer knowledge, but there is such a thing as too rich or fertile of soil and it will kill plants/crops. I don't think that it is the opposite of what you would want is it? If the crops (non corn grains) required less fertile soil to grow and flourish, it wouldn't grow or thrive. If your crop doesn't grow you have no crop, and this means no yield. Which would be a great reason they choose to stick with Corn, if something didn't grow. They would have had to stay with corn which does indeed explain the question.

[maryadkins]

there is such a thing as too rich or fertile of soil and it will kill plants/crops. I don't think that it is the opposite of what you would want is it? If the crops (non corn grains) required less fertile soil to grow and flourish, it wouldn't grow or thrive. If your crop doesn't grow you have no crop, and this means no yield. Which would be a great reason they choose to stick with Corn, if something didn't grow. They would have had to stay with corn which does indeed explain the question.

Woah! Yes, in your hypothetical this would be true. But I am 99% certain the LSAT authors were not thinking of "less fertile" soil this way--as if MORE fertile soil would have killed the other grains. Sorry being a farmer (or having farming knowledge) got in your way, here.

There is another problem with (D), however, even under your hypothetical, which is "some." Some grain crops could mean two of them--so why, still, didn't people replace the corn with the other grain crops that didn't require less fertile soil?

[saraafifiahmed]

Hey Guys, I was stuck between D and E. Is E the final correct answer . I cannot understand the reasoning behind it.

[Mab6q]

The first time I read A, I thought it was suggesting that the corn they relied on produced more food than the grain they used to rely on, so I made the illogical leap of thinking maybe they stuck with the corn because having more food was more important than nutrition. But actually A is telling us that the corn being relied on produce more food than the ancestors of that variety (the older corn). So it's not actually comparing the corn to the grain, but the new corn to the older corn variety.

Just as importantly, as has been noted, the author mentions the nutrition factor, which makes the paradox! So we have to take it into account. Why did they stick with the corn if they continued to have health related problems? Well, E gives us this answer, as they supplemented the corn with other foods.

One more thing to add. I'll admit to missing this problem, and I did so because when I read E, I was looking for reasons to eliminate it and not make it not work rather than to trying to make it work. I thought: well this may be the case, but it doesn't explain why they didn't go back to the old grain before they supplemented corn with the nongrain foods. This, however, is an ineffective strategy for paradox questions, because we don't need to have a bullet proof answer, as has been suggested. Instead, I should've thought: well, if they could use this to offset the health problems, and they could produce more food with corn, that explains why they didn't go back.

Cheers.