worst LR question ever

[ucsblaw8]

I cant see how this question could be answered in adequate time

Failure to rotate crops depletes the soil's nutrients gradually unless other preventive measures are taken. If the soil's nutrients are completely depleted, additional crops cannot be grown unless fertilizer is applied to the soil. All other things being equal, if vegetables are grown in soil that has had fertilizer applied rather than being grown in non-fertilized soil, they are more vulnerable to pests and, as a consequence, must be treated with larger amounts of pesticides. The more pesticides used in vegatables, the greater the health risks to humans from eating those vegetables.

Suppose there were some vegetables that were grown in soil to which fertilizer had never been applied. On the basis of the passage, which one of the following would have to be true regarding those vegetables?

C) The vegetables were grown in soil that had not been completely depleted of nutrients but not necessarily soil in which crops had been rotated.

Do I need to do diagraming for this question? I wasted so much time on this damn problem

peace

[A.J.-the real A.J]

This seems pretty clear to me.  Post the rest of the answer choices and I will help you further.

[A.J.-the real A.J]

Alright here is the deal.  You know that no fertilizer has been applied and that crops have grown.  This means that on the basis of the second statement the soil cannot have been completely depleated.  That is the key to the whole thing.  The fact that crops were or were not rotated may not be important because we only no that nutrients would be depleated only gradually if they were not.

[ucsblaw8]

A) The soil in which the vegetables were grown may have been completely depleted of nutrients because of an earlier failure to rotate crops.

B) It is not possible that the vegetables were grown in soil in which crops had been rotated.

D) Whatever the health risks to humans from eating the vegetables, these risks would not be attributable to the use of pesticides on them.

E) The health risks to humans from eating the vegetables were no less than the risks to humans from eating the same kinds of vegetables treated with pesticides.

Should I use formal logic on this and if so can you help me through it

Thanks A.J

[A.J.-the real A.J]

I wouldnt because I can see how the statements fit without a diagram but that is not to say that you shouldnt.  I can help you diagram if you need me to.

Edit: I only know "formal" logic as it applies to the LSAT.

[ucsblaw8]

Sweet, thanks for the help. I was too caught up in using formal logic to diagram it and I ended up wasting so much time I just skipped the damn problem

Peace

[A.J.-the real A.J]

So does that mean you're good?

[ucsblaw8]

ya, I can see how I can approach this problem without using LSAT formal logic, but I guess my problem was that I approached it incorrectly in the first place. Whenever I have to breakdown a long stimulus I get flustered. I should be good though, thanks

[A.J.-the real A.J]

OK, here it is anyway just for shits and giggles.

This one yields an ugly diagram and someone else may have a better way, but this is how I would have done it:

~[FR-->~D]-->PM

~[D-->~AC]-->F