Reading comp PrepTest 120 · Section 2 · Question 24

Passage

Questions 19-26  .        Until recently, biologists were unable to explain  . the fact that pathogens—disease–causing parasites—  . have evolved Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Science


Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • Old Theory with Question/New Theory with Answer
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Old Theory - Parasites evolve to be benign towards host so they can get passed on and survive
    • Question - Why do pathogens (a type of parasite) incapacitate/overwhelm hosts?
    • New Theory/Answer - Pathogens reproduce so extensively they can get passed on even with the host being incapacitated/dying

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • Implication of New Theory; Example - Rhinovirus
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Implication - Virulence (capacity to incapacitate) is a function of transmission
    • Example - Rhinovirus - Needs proximity to be transmitted, so not likely to be very virulent

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Opposite example (still supporting New Theory) - Vector pathogens
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Vector - Transmitted by an organism
    • Example - Mosquito - If pathogen transmitted by mosquito, then high virulence is good (more pathogen gets picked up by mosquito)

Paragraph 4

  • Paragraph note
    • Generalization; Exception to above trends
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Medical literature generalization - Vector pathogens more virulent than direct transmission pathogens (supports above)
    • Exceptions - Examples - Diphtheria/Tuberculosis - Directly transmitted, but can live outside body (sit and wait), so are very virulent
    • Superlative - “Among most dangerous”

Main Point: A new theory on why pathogens incapacitate their victims suggests that virulence and mode of transmission are directly related for pathogens, with vector pathogens more virulent than pathogens that are directly transmitted, though there are exceptions of virulent directly transmitted pathogens that can survive outside of a host.

Key Lines?

Lines 1-4 - A puzzling phenomenon

Lines 4-7 - The Old Theory

Lines 10-16 - Answer/Explanation/New Theory

Lines 19-22 - Implication of New Theory

Line 22 - An example is introduced

Lines 31-33 - Comparison

Line 33 - Another example is introduced

Lines 44-46 - Generalization supporting New Theory

Lines 49-51 - Exceptions to the general rule (Examples)

Meta-Structure?

Old Theory/New Theory - The passage starts with a puzzling phenomenon - some parasites (pathogens) incapacitate/kill their hosts. This makes it appear as if we’re headed for a Phenomenon/Explanation or Question/Answer passage (see note below), but the second sentence discusses how this phenomenon doesn’t line up with the existing theory of host-parasite relations, which pulls us into the Old Theory/New Theory Meta-Structure. The Author does present a New Theory, starting in Line 10, and the rest of the passage explores the implications of it, including examples that align with it as well as some exceptions. When dealing with an Old Theory/New Theory passage, the Author’s view of the new theory is generally the main point. Here, the Author says that some biologists “have suggested” the New Theory, which doesn’t commit her to agreeing with it. She does bring up examples that conform to it, though, and even when introducing exceptions to it, she starts by saying that the facts (“medical literature”) “generally support[]” it, so we should characterize her viewpoint as slightly positive but not entirely sold on it. We should expect the main point to be more about presenting this new theory than advocating for it, and we should be sure to note the exceptions as well as the implications/support, leading us to the main point above.

Phenomenon/Explanation (Question/Answer) - The new theory here is meant to explain a phenomenon that the old theory didn’t have an explanation/answer for. The discussion around this is the same as for the Old Theory/New Theory Meta-Structure (after all, scientific theories are meant to answer questions about unexplained phenomena), and we note these here because answers might use language associated with these Meta-Structures.

Examples - The passage presents an example in each of Paragraphs 2-4 to highlight what it’s talking about, which is great because otherwise the science in this passage would be difficult! It can also be helpful, in a passage such as this one, to try to frame the examples in a common way. Here, we’d say:

  • Paragraph 2 - Rhinovirus - Direct transmission/Low virulence
  • Paragraph 3 - Mosquito/Vector - Vector transmission/High virulence
  • Paragraph 4 - Exception/Diphtheria and Tuberculosis - Direct transmission/High virulence

Note that we defined each example by three parts - a key term or terms in it (to make it easy to find), the mode of transmission, and the level of virulence. This will allow us to compare them and find the relevant one for any given question. It also reflects the main point of the passage, which relates virulence to mode of transmission.

Last Thoughts?

This passage has a lot of unfamiliar terminology to keep straight (pathogen, parasite, virulence, vector, etc…), so it’s important to note any definitions with which you’re unfamiliar. In particular, one set of words here falls into a common pattern on how the LSAT will trap you - two unfamiliar words that are similar. Pathogen and parasite here are both familiar in the words themselves (long p-words) and in how most people would commonly define them. As such, it’s particularly important to be sure that you understand the difference - pathogens are a type of parasite that causes diseases, and parasites can evolve to be benign.

Also, when dealing with an Old Theory/New Theory passage, it’s important to identify whether the new theory replaces or supplements the old theory. That old theory does explain the relationship between most parasites and their hosts, which do develop in benign ways. It’s a subset of these parasites - pathogens - which can’t be explained by the old theory and which is explained by the new theory. So, in this case, the new theory supplements the old theory by explaining a phenomenon that it can’t - that of pathogens. The old theory’s explanation of other parasites, on the other hand, still holds.

Question prompt

Which one of the Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: A

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Question Type

Science

Strategy Overview

Review our paragraph role notes, then find the answer that best matches up with them

Answer Anticipation

After reading each paragraph, we should be taking a few seconds to note or reflect on its role. This helps us to track the Author’s argument, find details for questions, and directly answer Argument Structure questions such as this one.So we’ve already done most of the work for our anticipation of this question! To refresh what we said:Paragraph 1 - Old Theory with Question/New Theory with AnswerParagraph 2 - Implication of New Theory; Example - RhinovirusParagraph 3 - Opposite example - Vector pathogensParagraph 4 - Generalization; Exception to above trends

Answer choices

  1. A
    introduction of a scientific Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem

    (A) The passage does start with a question about an anomalous phenomenon - pathogens, which break with the normal trend of parasites that evolve to have a benign coexistence with their hosts. It then presents a potential explanation for that phenomenon, and Paragraph 2 starts with an implication of that explanation. The rest of Paragraph 2 and Paragraph 3 each present examples illustrating that implication, and Paragraph 4 deals with exceptions to it. Wow, did we nail our notes here! This answer matches up with our understanding of the passage perfectly, making it the correct answer.

  2. B
    introduction of a scientific Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) This answer is the same as (A) except the mention of the implication has been moved from the middle of the answer to the end. Since the implication was mentioned at the beginning of Paragraph 2 and not at the end of the passage, this answer is incorrect.

  3. C
    introduction of a scientific Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) The first two parts of this answer match up with the passage, but then it jumps to the examples without mentioning the implication. And then it mentions the implication after the two examples. That mixes the order of those elements up, so this answer is incorrect.

  4. D
    introduction of a scientific Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) This answer skips over the explanation for the phenomenon/anomaly that’s presented at the end of Paragraph 1! While it has many elements from the passage, and it places them in the correct order, missing the explanation - which is a central part of this argument - makes this answer incorrect. Additionally, it presents an implication of the explanation, not an implication of the anomaly as this answer choice states.

  5. E
    introduction of a scientific Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) There aren’t two examples of the anomaly presented ahead of the explanation for the anomaly, and this answer misses several key elements later on in the passage, so we can rule it out.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A Credited 41%
  2. B 15%
  3. C 12%
  4. D 29%
  5. E 4%

Deeper help

Ask follow-ups on any step

Optional AI tutor mode will let you interrogate assumptions, compare answers, and drill weak patterns without leaving the page.

Human-written explanations stay primary; AI is an add-on when you want it.

Discussion