LSAT set1-sec1-10

coolgmat

Some people say that the scarcity of food is a function of the finite limits of the earth's resources, coupled with a relentless rate of population growth. This analysis fails to recognize, however, that much of the world's agricultural resources are used to feed livestock instead of people. In the United States, for example, almost one-half of the agricultural acreage is devoted to crops fed to livestock. A steer reduces twenty-one pounds of inexpensive grain to one pound of expensive meat. Thus, the scarcity of food is not merely a function of limited resources and population growth.

Which one of the following is an assumption that would allow the conclusion in the argument to be properly drawn?

(A) People prefer eating meat to eating grain
(B) Meat is twenty-one times more expensive than grain
(C) The limits of the earth's agricultural resources are not finite.
(D) More than one-half of the agricultural acreage in the United States is devoted to crops fed to humans
(E) Growing crops for human consumption on the acreage currently devoted to crops for livestock will yield more food for more people.

The answer is E. Pls tell me how to solve it step by step. It seems that I don't fully understand the conclusion. Pls give explanation for the whole argument if possible. Thanks.

sunder

make it symple
题干：有很多的土地种植的粮食现在用于喂猪 =〉不用担心粮食缺乏
读完题干，脑中有了隐含的假设：那些土地种的东西能给人吃（我觉得这是题干跳过的一个mid-conclusion）
看选项，got it. E. 用not E验证一下，没错。

coolgmat

Thanks. I agree. But I have one more question related to the understanding.
At the very beginning, the argument states that the scarcity of food is a function of the finite limits of the earth's resources, coupled with a relentless rate of population growth. Then, it refutes the opinion by the evidence that much of the resource are fed to livestock instead of people. Finally, it gives a new conclusion that the scarcity of food is NOT MERELY a function of limited resources and population growth. There's only small difference between the old and new conclusion, the latter one has two more words "not merely".
How to understand "not merely" and "function" in the sentence? thanks.

sunder

food = f(resource,population). food become scarce when population grows with resource remaining limited.
if food is not merely the function of population and resource, say, comsumption of crop by liverstock also taken as a factor, food = f(resource, population,liverstock).
the definition of food with 3 factors need to be defended. and we defend is with choice E, claiming that "Growing crops for human consumption on the acreage currently devoted to crops for livestock will yield more food for more people".

for you amusement.
but also what I am thinking when encountering this question.

  just kidding

coolgmat

I feel a little better now but ... ) Since the argument states that This analysis fails to recognize..., it's obvious that the scarcity of food is not merely a function of limited resources and population growth. It seems that we don't need the assumption to get the conclusion. right?
It's kind of obstacle in my reasoning. Pls help me figure it out. Thanks.

sunder

"it's obvious that the scarcity of food is not merely a function of limited resources and population growth."
really? it might not be that obvious la. this is the conclusion built on the phenomenon that
"In the United States, for example, almost one-half of the agricultural acreage is devoted to crops fed to livestock. A steer reduces twenty-one pounds of inexpensive grain to one pound of expensive meat."
but, if choice E is not true, that is, these mentioned acerage can't be used to grow crops for human consumption, the author can't be right in saying "the scarcity of food is not merely a function of limited resources and population growth".

in a nut's shell, author oppose an argument by introducing a third factor and the assmuption is that the introduction is valid(or say, this 3rd factor is not irrelevant).

coolgmat

Thanks, Sunder. I got it. I tried to solve this problem with "broken bridge" method rather than  with "not choice x" so that I failed to get to the right point.