Q14

[bermudask8er7]

Hey,

Can you briefly please explain why B is the correct answer?

Thanks

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

We're looking to support the claim that one cannot consider the history of how the land changed (specifically that it is now irrigated and a top producer of specialty crops) without considering the impact of the Chinese.

(B) does this. In the previous paragraph, we're told that the Chinese were able to look at swamps and see the promise that others couldn't, and knew about specialty crops others didn't. (B) proves that the land was swamp before, and it makes it very likely that the Chinese did indeed have a significant impact on the changes mentioned.

[rbolden]

I do get why B is the correct answer. But I initially chose A instead of B. Can you explain what type of incorrect answer choice A is? If the market for the region's specialty crops has grown faster than the market for any other crops, how does this not prove the claim that the Chinese settlers had an effect on the agribusiness of that region? Is this too much of a stretch and/or slightly out of scope?

[americano1990]

I would say its out of scope.

Answer choice (A) is simply talking about the change over the past decade.

Always remind yourself what you have to strengthen: Lines 54-60

In other words, we have to support the claim that "(in order to understand the prosperity of the land today) it is necessary that we take into consideration the input of Chinese settlers as reconstructed from their interactions with that landscape"

But answer choice (A), focusing only on the recent decade, tells you nothing about why you have to understand the original interaction of the Chinese with the lands in order to understand the landscape today.

Contrast that with (B) (i know...not the most amazing answer...but far better than the other four), which at least provides links to two things of our interest.

1. Chinese (by referring to descendants of Chinese...again not the best link possible)

2. original condition of the land (swamps....and here we say..."okay...the Chinese must have done smthin good to the land")

cool?

[velvet]

When you answer these kinds of questions (synthesis question?) that refer directly to certain lines, is it sufficient to just look at those lines, or the last sentence in this case to evaluate the answer choices that best strengthens? Or is it ideal to kind of skim from the beginning of the last paragraph?

Thanks in advance.

[maryadkins]

american1990--nicely explained. To boil it down even further, I'd just agree that (A) is about the last decade. The claim in the last sentence is about the impact of Chinese settlers--which is not something that happened in the last decade.

When you answer these kinds of questions (synthesis question?) that refer directly to certain lines, is it sufficient to just look at those lines, or the last sentence in this case to evaluate the answer choices that best strengthens? Or is it ideal to kind of skim from the beginning of the last paragraph?

It depends on how much time you have, and your sense of where the discussion in that particular part of the passage really starts. If reading the lines cited/sentences referenced is sufficient to give you a good idea of what the claim is--which could vary depending on the passage and on how well you understood and remember it--then great.

If you revisit those lines and are still unclear, you need to familiarize yourself with context so that you can answer the question with some sense of what's going on.

Basically, re-read as little as you can in order to understand the argument being referenced. Sometimes that may be more and sometimes less. Use your judgment!

[nflamel69]

Just want to add my two cents on answer A. A simply suggest the market for the crop is growing faster than the other crops? But does it necessarily leads to the causation of the interaction between Chinese settlers and the land? Not really. It could be better management or advertisement, hell, it could be people prefer it more. It doesn't really address the interaction as the causation. But B specially address the interaction of the land and its effect on today's agribusiness

[raymondcezar]

I chose C as the answer. Can you help me in explaining why this answer choice is wrong, please? Dissecting this answer choice, I see that it does not mention the Chinese settlers, but does mention formerly arid lands. (Is it too much of a stretch in linking the two together?) However, this may be too broad in that other settlers, outside of the Chinese, could have cultivated those lands.

Secondly, the sentence referenced in this question is not concerned with the result of sufficiently irrigating soil.
What the main point of the last sentence of the passage states is that in order to understand the flourishing of the area's cropland, we need to be cognizant of its history with the Chinese settlers; and because of this, and that C does not deal with the sentence's mp, C is a wrong answer choice.

Thank you!

[maryadkins]

We can think of this as a strengthen question. The author is making the argument that:

the Chinese settlers helped lay the foundation for agribusiness -->
we can't understand how it became irrigated and so productive without considering them

(C) doesn't offer us any reason to buy that the Chinese settlers are why it's so productive.

Same with (D). As for (E), it links the region to irrigation, but also not to the Chinese settlers at all.

[aznriceboi17]

The conclusion referenced that 80 percent of the area's cropland is now irrigated. Earlier in the final paragraph the author mentions that the Chinese settlers brought with them specialized skills in irrigation systems.

Choice C confirms that irrigation has brought benefits (fertile soil) to agribusinesses in the area, which supports the author's claim that the Chinese settlers 'helped lay the foundation for the now well-known and prosperous agribusiness of the region'. Similar to raymondcezar, I have to ask: is this link is really too weak? To me, it seems similar to B, which simply references the other specialized skill of the Chinese settlers, which was swamp reclamation.

Even if the jump from improved irrigation to Chinese settlers seems like a larger leap than in B, at least C has the broad scope that the author's conclusion had in referring to the region's agribusiness overall. B only talks about a subset of specialty crop businesses: those owned by descendants of Chinese settlers. For all we know, they could represent only 1% of the region's specialty crop production, in which case benefitting them tells us nothing about the original Chinese settlers' effect on the overall specialty crop industry.

[jewels0602]

The conclusion referenced that 80 percent of the area's cropland is now irrigated. Earlier in the final paragraph the author mentions that the Chinese settlers brought with them specialized skills in irrigation systems.

Choice C confirms that irrigation has brought benefits (fertile soil) to agribusinesses in the area, which supports the author's claim that the Chinese settlers 'helped lay the foundation for the now well-known and prosperous agribusiness of the region'. Similar to raymondcezar, I have to ask: is this link is really too weak? To me, it seems similar to B, which simply references the other specialized skill of the Chinese settlers, which was swamp reclamation.

Even if the jump from improved irrigation to Chinese settlers seems like a larger leap than in B, at least C has the broad scope that the author's conclusion had in referring to the region's agribusiness overall. B only talks about a subset of specialty crop businesses: those owned by descendants of Chinese settlers. For all we know, they could represent only 1% of the region's specialty crop production, in which case benefitting them tells us nothing about the original Chinese settlers' effect on the overall specialty crop industry.

My reasons for picking C were exactly this-- can someone explain by B wins out over C?

[mahdib21]

The conclusion referenced that 80 percent of the area's cropland is now irrigated. Earlier in the final paragraph the author mentions that the Chinese settlers brought with them specialized skills in irrigation systems.

Choice C confirms that irrigation has brought benefits (fertile soil) to agribusinesses in the area, which supports the author's claim that the Chinese settlers 'helped lay the foundation for the now well-known and prosperous agribusiness of the region'. Similar to raymondcezar, I have to ask: is this link is really too weak? To me, it seems similar to B, which simply references the other specialized skill of the Chinese settlers, which was swamp reclamation.

Even if the jump from improved irrigation to Chinese settlers seems like a larger leap than in B, at least C has the broad scope that the author's conclusion had in referring to the region's agribusiness overall. B only talks about a subset of specialty crop businesses: those owned by descendants of Chinese settlers. For all we know, they could represent only 1% of the region's specialty crop production, in which case benefitting them tells us nothing about the original Chinese settlers' effect on the overall specialty crop industry.

My reasons for picking C were exactly this-- can someone explain by B wins out over C?

In the same boat... anyone have an explanation addressing this? Tough question.

[tommywallach]

Mary already explained the problem with (C). That's the problem.

[LeeJ891]

I also chose C. I think that the reason C is incorrect is because that the answer says "formerly arid lands... contain extremely fertile soil when they are sufficiently irrigated." This means it is sufficient for them to be irrigated, but that irrigation isn't necessarily why they now have fertile soil. AKA - it is possible that something besides irrigation is the reason these lands now contain fertile soil. If the reason for the formerly arid lands now containing fertile soil is not because of irrigation, the Chinese settlers may have had nothing to do with it.

[LizaK873]

Ahh.. I think I got it. A vs B

A) explains the 'top producer' part.
So if you identified the 'what needs support' as 'why are Chinese-settlers lands top producers', then A looks like the right answer.

But that's not what needs support.
The actual question is asking for 'why MUST we study Chinese-settlers for the success of region (pacific coast/swamp) through crops'.

B) says because Chinese-settlers related agribusinesses WAS this region.


Similar to C (explained below),
A) the 'last decade' is a problem (as others have stated) in that it could actually weaken it. If success is within the last decade, why not study the last decade to see why this region's agribusinesses became so successful? Why necessarily study all the way to the origin, of Chinese settlers, decades ago?

---

Reasons I ruled out others:

C) too general - doesn't narrow down to the agribusinesses mentioned in the passage, which is specifically swamp/Chinese-settlers. This answer choice could be about the entire country, so it doesn't help enough with why this specific region, in order to be understood, has a link to Chinese settlers.
As in, you can study about non-Chinese settlers in some other arid regions to learn how arid-regions came to establish great agribusinesses. So this actually weakens that you need to study these chinese settlers that is mentioned.

Analogy would be: "John needs to buy a Toyota".
and C would sound like: "Working men like John need cars to help him commute faster." - it sounds like it 'helps', but the statement isn't "needs to buy a car", but rather "needs to buy a Toyota".

D) doesn't help explain why Chinese settlers play a role

E) same as D