Q15

[alexw14]

How come the answer is C and not E? I am having a hard time understanding why it's C because I feel as though the passage does do what E says. If someone could help that would be great

[demetri.blaisdell]

Thanks for posting, alexw14. Welcome to the forums! I posted a version of the scale in a new topic called "passage discussion." Take a look at the scale so you know where I'm coming from on this.

I think the problem with (E) is that it is too narrow in scope. It describes part of the third paragraph. But what about the second paragraph where discusses wildfires and losing important crops like corn and sugarcane? There are more problems with the "don't worry about rising CO2" than its effects on global warming.

I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any questions.

Demetri

[deedubbew]

Why not B? The contradiction is between certain research showing that the growth would be beneficial and other studies suggesting that such growth would have negative effects due to the difference in photosynthetic efficiency and peat.

[maryadkins]

The problem with (B) is that it's too neutral. This isn't a passage where two contradictory sets of studies are presented as if there isn't a winning side. The winning side is captured by (C): the studies discussed show that the benefits of increased CO2 have been overstated. Revisit paragraphs 2 and 3"”both are getting at this.

As for the other answers that haven't been so far addressed in this chain:

(A) is the opposite of what we are looking for, and (D) is too narrow"”would inhibit the growth rates of other plants? That is mentioned at the beginning of paragraph 2 but is not the overall point, here. It is too narrow.

I hope this helps!

[jasonyu0825]

hi,for a non-native speaker,I still have trouble with B.First paragraph comes up with two benefits?first is agricultural abundance & second is Co2 increase at lower rate.
then in Paragraph 2,line 21 says eventually result in decreased agricultural yields.And Paragraph 3,Line40-45,which I think is contradictory to the second benefit in Paragraph 1?
I am so confused..

[maandychan8]

Hi YU, maybe u can think the question this way.
On the one hand, according to your explanation, u think the 1st paragraph puts forward 2 "benefits "about the elevated CO2 level, which I donnot agree, cause benefit means we do get something salutary from it, and the whole passage argues that the increasing level of CO2 does not result in the agricultural abundance and amelioration of global warming in actuality . And the pivot at the beginning of paragraph 2 indicates what the author's gonna do is to rebut "some research" mentioned above. So I think we can conclude that the "benefit" here is a misconception used by some researchers.
On the other hand, if there was nothing wrong with "benefit" , I mean there do exist 2 benefits about the enhancing CO2 level, the answer (b) just mentions only one of the two aspects: "contradictory findings about the benefits of increased levels of CO2 on agricultural productivity" , so it's not the correct one due to incompleteness .
Let me know if it helps.

[andrewgong01]

I personally think this answer choice is a bit flawed. I agree that overall the passage is saying something along the lines of how even though more CO2 may lead to some benefits, overall it is a net negative effect. However, "C" only says beneficial effects have been overstated. The beneficial effects have not been overstated though because the author does not dispute the fact that the benefits are just wrong because we do see evidence in both P2 and P3 that plants do grow and vegetation (both good and bad) increases. In other words, we don't see the author pulling back and directly saying the benefits of increased plant growth is just wrong/exaggerated ( I guess the fact that the author points out some crops benefits more than others could be the author saying the benefits are overstated in P2 but in P3 the author does not dispute the fact that plants did grow in the tundra).

However, there are also undesirable side effects to this growth in plants such as weeds and higher forest fire (P2) along with more Peet in the tundra(P3). However, this does not change the fact that there were beneficial effects too. Rather, this changes the net benefit effect where the net benefits have been overstated.

Because of the way I viewed this problem where I viewed it as the net benefit is "negative" "E" was the better answer where it simply states that even though there are benefits (more plant growth) overall, it is bad for the enviornment as it increases global warming..

If the LSAT talks about "benefits" should we assume in this case it meant net benefits and not benefits in itself where we ignore the "bad" stuff because the "bad" stuff gets accounted for in the net benefits, which is benefits less the bad stuff.

[ThomasW559]

To those of you who chose E...

Notice how the passage doesn't state that CO2 directly causes global warming, but that it CONTRIBUTES (paragraph 1).

Moreover, Billing's simulation address the prospect that the CO2 levels would increase, not global warming. I realize that you could stretch the two points from paragraph 1 and 3, but this is far from what the passage is attempting to explain, which is the connection between increased CO2 and plant abundance.