Q24 - There are 1.3 billion cows

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: If we gave cows better diets, we could better control the cow-related methane problem.
Evidence: The cow population grows to keep pace with demand for meat and milk, and cows produce tons of methane. Most cows are given low quality diets, but better quality diets result in less methane per cow.

Answer Anticipation:
What possible objections could we make to this Plan/Prediction? It sounds like when you give a cow a better diet, it produces less methane. So it sounds reasonable to conclude that if we gave more cows better quality diets, we would get less methane from them. But the conclusion can't possibly be airtight on a Strengthen question, so there must be some other aspect of this plan that would affect whether or not we'd really end up with less methane. Our prephrase might just have to be, "keep convincing me that cows on better quality diets lead to less methane from cows".

Correct Answer:
A

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) This works! Not only does a better diet mean less methane per cow. According to this, better diets mean that there are FEWER COWS needed overall to keep pace with the demand for meat and milk. So we win twice: fewer cows needed and less methane per cow. (One can see how this answer, if turned into its opposite, would weaken: if better diets led to less milk and less meat, then our methane solution would be compromised. We'd be getting less methane per cow, but we would need more cows than before in order to get the same levels of milk/meat)

(B) This is irrelevant. Not only does listing methane's atomtic components mean nothing to this argument, this answer choice speaks about something true of ALL types of cow feed. So there's no way this will move the needle in terms of us scoring a win by switching from low-quality to better-quality cow feed.

(C) "Willingness" is out of scope. The conclusion's truth value only hinges on whether a certain action would yield a certain effect. The truth of that is unaffected by anyone's willingness to take that certain action.

(D) Meat vs. Milk is an irrelevant distinction. Our methane problem comes from cows used for meat, milk, or both. We don't need to carve up that pie, since the conclusion is speaking about giving better diets to all cows.

(E) This helps to convince us that methane is important to global warming, but who cares? The truth value of the conclusion hinges only on whether there would be more or less methane. It is unaffected by whether there would be more or less global warming.

Takeaway/Pattern: It's tough to anticipate this answer or even to prephrase the general function of the answer, other than to reiterate that we want something that helps us argue that "cows on better diets" leads to "less methane overall from cows". (A) does that for us, although we have to have processed the first sentence. It sounds like background, but it provides an important layer in terms of what (A) is really telling us, "better diets = fewer cows needed".

#officialexplanation

[deanmx]

I was debating between B) and E). The correct answer really came out of nowhere for me. Could someone please explain to me why A) is correct? Thanks

[aileenann]

Sure thing. In fact, I think it makes most sense to go through all the answers. It's just as important to understand why particular answers are wrong as to explain why they are right.

Let's take it step-by-step. This argument is really asking us to strengthen the conclusion. So we'll be sure to the conclusion most in mind, although we can sometime strengthen an argument by strengthening the basis for the premises as well. The best is if we can take an assumption and turn it into a fact/premise.

The conclusion of this argument is the last sentence, tipped off by "therefore." So the argument is concluding that if cows had a better diet, methane production could be kept in check. The main reason the author relies on seems to be that cows produce less methane when they receive a better quality diet.

With this in mind let's look at the answer choices.

(A) strengthens the conclusion because it points out that giving a cow a good quality diet not only reduces methane but also increases the quantity of things - milk and meat - for which the cows are raised in the first place. This conveniently addresses any doubts a reader might have as to whether a high quality diet might reduce methane but also at the cost of reducing output of meat and milk as well (this seems like a weird outcome, but it could happen - it's possibilities, not your common sense intuition, that matter on the LSAT).


(B) is irrelevant because it doesn't give us any basis of comparing the high quality and low quality diets we are after. Note that the mention of hydrogen/oxygen is not by itself out of scope - remember scope is a little bit different for strengthen/weaken questions.

(C) is out of scope because we are not concerned with the feasibility of giving cows a high quality diet - we are concerned with what happened if we were to get around to giving them this high quality diet.

(D) is out of scope because it is making a distinction that has nothing to do with the difference between high and low quality diets for cows.

(E) is out of scope for the same reason as (B) and (D).


I hope this helps. Please follow up with comments and questions if you have any

[deanmx]

Ahhh, I get it now. Thank you very much!

[aileenann]

My pleasure

[linzru86]

Im confused because the conclusion here seems very specific. "Methane production from cows could be kept in check if cows were given better quality diets" How does the fact that milk and meat would be produced at a higher rate help keep methane production in check? The conclusion doesn't state that giving cows a better quality diet would help methane levels and all around be a positive thing. If it were, I could see how A would be relevant because these cows' purpose is produce meat and milk so producing more would also result in a positive outcome but the conclusion concerns methane which is not in or implied by A at all.

[james.jonathan.wong]

Im confused because the conclusion here seems very specific. "Methane production from cows could be kept in check if cows were given better quality diets" How does the fact that milk and meat would be produced at a higher rate help keep methane production in check? The conclusion doesn't state that giving cows a better quality diet would help methane levels and all around be a positive thing. If it were, I could see how A would be relevant because these cows' purpose is produce meat and milk so producing more would also result in a positive outcome but the conclusion concerns methane which is not in or implied by A at all.

I think you need to take a step back from conclusion and try to remember that an answer for a strengthen question does not necessarily need to prove the Stim's argument 100%. (A) supports the conclusion by eliminating a potential counter-argument: improving the diets of the cows might decrease methane but ALSO have the negative consequence of poor meat/milk.

Hopefully this helps .

[lisahollchang]

I understood A to be correct for a slightly different reason, let me know what you think.

Basically I chose A after reviewing the first sentence that said the cow population is GROWING to keep up with milk and meat demand. If good-quality diets let cows to produce more than low-quality cows, this could lead to an eventual slowing of the growth or even decline of the number of cows that were needed to meet demand, likewise decreasing the amount of methane produced by cows.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

You're right on! But I don't think it's exactly a different reason than Aileen's above, but rather a different way of saying the same thing. It's similar to viewing a coin from two different sides.

Great work!

[kejia.tang]

I have a similar but different angle to contribute.

The conclusion is that methane production could be kept in check if cows were given better-quality diets.

However, if better-quality diets mean less meat and milk is produced, then even more cows will be needed "to keep pace with the demand for meat and milk." Answer A) addresses this concern and strengthens the conclusion.

[tzyc]

So the 1st sentence is also premise right...??
At first I thought "...cows produces less methane when they receive better quality diests" is the same as the conclusion "methane production from cows could be kept in check (meaning could be lessened) if cows were given better-quality diets"...are they the same??

Thank you

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The first sentence is a premise, it's definitely part of the support for the argument's conclusion.

To your second question,

At first I thought "...cows produces less methane when they receive better quality diests" is the same as the conclusion "methane production from cows could be kept in check (meaning could be lessened) if cows were given better-quality diets"...are they the same??

Those two ideas are indeed the same!

[s.atrmachin3]

After reading all posts, I'm still confused as to why/how (A) is correct. For starters, I can't quite figure out what "the gap" is. But I just don't see how (A) strengthens the argument.

Lance

[waltw]

Hi Lance,
The 2 explicit pieces of the argument are:

1) Better quality diets
and
2) Methane production

I think this problem is tricky precisely because the gap isn't between these two obvious pieces but between 2) and a subtle 3rd piece that was introduced earlier:

3) Cow population is growing to keep apace with demand for meat & milk

The gap is here. Even if cows are fed better quality diets,
if demand for meat & milk continues to increase --> then cow population will continue to grow to keep apace --> more methane production

A) Addresses this gap neatly by saying cows fed good-quality diets will produce more meat & milk

[alena21century]

Answer A states that good diet helps individual cows produce more meat and milk (more meat and milk per cow).
Thus, if cows are fed good diet the increase in cow population to meet the demand for meat and milk will slow down. This will in turn decrease the total production of methane by the cow population.

[lsatzen]

Hi All,

I skipped this question during my PT, because it was not clicking with me upon my first read. However, during blind review, I realized that the answer was (A), but I am worried that the reasoning I used to arrive at the answer might be unreliable.

I see how (A) acts to strengthen the argument by defending against the potential drawback mentioned in aileenann's post. But the way I understood (A) as strengthening the argument was:

It presents another / analogous situation in which "good quality" diets lends itself to producing a desired outcome (I read this as using it as a control to keep a series of outcomes in check - more meat and milk).

The reason I was inclined to read answer choice (A) in this manner was because, my pre-phrase was something along the lines of

"well what if there is something wrong with the better-quality diets? What if there are uncontrollable factors that prevent us from keeping methane production in check? What if they become indigestible by the cows or what if they have volatile reactions to the better-quality diets?"

The stimulus moves from saying that a change in diet produces less methane, to concluding that better-quality diets could help keep methane production in check. They might produce less methane but we don't know if it will continue to be stable.

Am I making assumptions that are by commonsense standards implausible, superfluous, or incompatible with the passage? I am having a hard time toning down the creativeness / crazy hypotheticals for attacking arguments, and trying to hone in on what the LSAT really wants us to focus on.

[maryadkins]

You want to keep the focus on methane production, for sure. So your questions are good—you're getting to the heart of the issue by asking, "What if there is something wrong with better-quality diets?"—but I would tack on to that question, "...FOR METHANE LEVELS?"

Why? Because the conclusion is about methane production. It's not about how well the cows digest meat or if it's economically stable for the farming industry or anything like that. Now, if you can link these matters explicitly and directly to methane production, okay. But if you find yourself struggling to figure out how these might affect methane levels...that's a red flag. Look for a better answer, or in this case, more direct reasoning to support the answer you are considering.

Hope this helps.

[lsatzen]

Thank you Mary.

I see how I was stretching the connection, by jumping through some additional hoops. I was trying to establish that the potential of having a volatile reaction to better quality diets might lead to an overall increase in methane production - but that does not have to follow. It could just as easily be the case that it leads to even less methane production.

I also thought that the argument had to assume that the better quality meat had to be digestible to be a feasible solution. So, in order to strengthen that assumption, we could say that the diet in question, has been successfully used to remedy a problem in the past. But again, it doesn't seem to be a direct a link as the other interpretations of answer choice (A).

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, there's no common sense connection between "better quality diet" and "volatile reaction / indigestible". If anything, there's the opposite link.

That's not to say that the two could never go hand-in-hand, but it wouldn't be a safe LSAT story to tell ourselves.

Meanwhile, there's of course a very safe common sense link between "producing more meat and milk per cow" and "needing fewer cows to meet the demand for meat/milk".

Make sure you don't think of this conclusion is fuzzy terms, like "We should switch to a better-quality diet". THAT conclusion has to worry more about stuff like feasibility, stability, or any other sort of adverse reaction.

A conditional conclusion is always fought by fighting the necessary condition.

IF better diet, THEN methane production in check.

We have to figure out a way how switching to the better diet might lead to more methane. Maybe producing the plants/animal parts that go into the higher quality diet actually releases more methane into the atmosphere than the old crappy diet did.

Maybe cows fed this better diet would have less output (than those roided-up antibiotic fed ones on the crappy diet) and thus we'd need more cows, and thus we'd get more methane. (A) rules out this story, but it's an incredibly hard idea to predict.

[matthughes2]

I hated this question for one very specific reason: the correct ansewr choice, A), does not in fact strengthen the conclusion much at all. The question seems designed to make you sit there going through each choice looking for one that proves the conclusion. Remember that with a strengthen question you don't have to PROVE the conclusion, just give it a little bit of oomph, even if just one iota.

In this instance, none of the other answer choices strengthen the conclusion at all. B) gives irrelevant information about the chemical composition of "all types of cow feed", which in fact might weaken the argument by giving you a reason to say "all cow feed, regardless of quality, contains methane stuff". C) is outside of scope: who cares about what farmers would do if feed cost X or Y? Maybe they would and maybe they wouldn't but it doesn't strengthen the conclusion. D) tries to draw an irrelevant distinction between methane output from each class of cow mentioned in the prompt (dairy vs meat) and E) tries to draw a similarly irrelevant distinction between methane and CO2, which isn't even mentioned in the prompt.

A) doesn't necessarily strengthen the conclusion specifically (methane could be kept in check if cows were fed better food) but does provide additional justification for feeding them better food: they'd be more productive.

Again, this question was designed to chew up your remaining time by forcing you to stare at five bad answers and pick the least bad one. Don't make the mistake of assuming that a STR question requires you to completely justify the conclusion. In this case, it doesn't justify--it barely even strengthens it! It just strengthens it THE MOST. "Add more strength to the conclusion" sounds like the answer choice should speak specifically to the conclusion but if my conclusion is that "Bob is a jerk because he hit my brother", "he also steals checks out of people's mailboxes" strengthens that conclusion even if it has nothing to do with my brother.