Q14 - Resident: Residents of this locale

[LSAT-Chang]

Hello!
Had a quick question about this one..
I picked the correct answer (C) but out of guess between (C) and (D). I wasn't able to eliminate (D) because I thought (since this is a strengthen question) that if many residents have annual incomes that are twice what they were when it was agricultural, isn't it a great support for the conclusion that they shouldn't consider their loss of farming as a tragedy? I mean in the end, it's a good thing right? Or is this requiring another assumption of my own of having more money = no tragedy of losing farming?

BTW, in relation to answer choice (D).. what is "many"? I know "some" is 1~100, but what is many? Is it the same as "most"? Most means over half, but wasn't so sure what "many" was... can it also be 1? I didn't pick (D) because of the word "many" because I thought then.. how about the other remaining "some" people? Maybe they don't have twice annual incomes, so we can't really say "Residents of this locale should not consider their loss of farming as a way of life to be a tragedy".. since I would assume "residents of this locale = all residents of this locale.."

Does this make sense?

[demetri.blaisdell]

Great questions for a classic strengthen problem. First, a word about many. Many on the LSAT does not mean most! In fact, many just means "more than one or two." They're hoping you will assume that it means "a lot," but we don't know that for sure.

But back to the argument: what is the gap?

Area has developed economically --> People losing farms shouldn't think it's a tragedy

The big assumption we've made here is that people use their economic well-being to judge whether or not it's a tragedy that they've lost their farms. (C) expresses this idea: residents don't value their farms more than their wallets.

(A) is out of scope. The argument doesn't address whether the nation needs the farms, but rather whether it is a tragedy that the farmers themselves lost them.

(B) is even more out of scope. National security?

(D) is a premise booster! We've already heard that the area has developed. This is giving me more information about the development. Premise boosters are never the correct answer for strengthen questions. Also, many could mean 20 (see above).

(E) weakens the argument. Those irrational farmers! They think it's a tragedy even when they aren't losing money. That won't help us strengthen.

Hope that clears up any lingering confusion. Let me know if you have any questions.

Demetri

[LSAT-Chang]

Great questions for a classic strengthen problem. First, a word about many. Many on the LSAT does not mean most! In fact, many just means "more than one or two." They're hoping you will assume that it means "a lot," but we don't know that for sure.

But back to the argument: what is the gap?

Area has developed economically --> People losing farms shouldn't think it's a tragedy

The big assumption we've made here is that people use their economic well-being to judge whether or not it's a tragedy that they've lost their farms. (C) expresses this idea: residents don't value their farms more than their wallets.

(A) is out of scope. The argument doesn't address whether the nation needs the farms, but rather whether it is a tragedy that the farmers themselves lost them.

(B) is even more out of scope. National security?

(D) is a premise booster! We've already heard that the area has developed. This is giving me more information about the development. Premise boosters are never the correct answer for strengthen questions. Also, many could mean 20 (see above).

(E) weakens the argument. Those irrational farmers! They think it's a tragedy even when they aren't losing money. That won't help us strengthen.

Hope that clears up any lingering confusion. Let me know if you have any questions.

Demetri

Thanks Demetri!

[monster_omiga]

(D) is a premise booster! We've already heard that the area has developed. This is giving me more information about the development. Premise boosters are never the correct answer for strengthen questions. Also, many could mean 20 (see above).

Hi, thanks for the answer.
Can you elaborate why premise boosters are never the correct for strengthen questions?
Many many thanks!

[timmydoeslsat]

Typically, a premise booster, as it is referred to, is information that essentially orbs around something already given to us. I would view this question stem a little differently than just a normal strengthen question, although it does accomplish that necessarily. On this, a justify the conclusion question stem, I am hunting for an answer choice that will help me arrive at the idea of should not consider loss of farming to be a tragedy.

I know from the evidence that this locale has transformed into a big time tech place with high paying jobs. I need something to address the gap between this evidence and the idea of losing the thing these people once had not being a tragedy.

Answer choice C lets me know that they actually value the econ prosperity more than the rural way of life. That helps justify that this is not a tragedy.

[RoyS513]

I'm wondering if this is a Sufficient Assumption question or a Strengthen question. The justify the conclusion question stem makes me confused.