Reading comp PrepTest 151 · Section 1 · Question 24

Passage

Questions 22-27  .       According to the generally accepted theory of  . plate tectonics, the earth's crust consists of a dozen Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Science


Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • Background info on "plate tectonics" and central question (why some areas have lots of subduction but no earthquakes)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Definitions:
      • Plate tectonics: The earth's crust features many plates of solid rock that move across the mantle (first sentence)
      • Mantle: The slightly fluid layer of rock between crust and core (first sentence)
      • Subduction: The process in which two plates collide and one plate is forced under the other until it merges with the mantle (third and fourth sentences)
      • Earth's seismic "hot zones": Regions with very high levels of subduction (fifth sentence)
    • Cause-and-effect relationship, according to the theory of plate tectonics:
      • Earthquakes are caused by two plates grinding against each other as they collide, which causes subduction, which causes an enormous build-up of energy abruptly released as an earthquake (second and fifth sentences)
    • Author attitude: "generally accepted" (first sentence); "contrary to expectations" (sixth sentence); "crucial question" (last sentence); "no answer" (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • Answer: Earthquakes are caused by subduction from plates moving in the opposite direction, not the same direction
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Comparisons of two subduction types:
      • When plates move toward each other, the resulting subduction is relatively motionless and shallow, the amount of friction is higher, and the likelihood of earthquakes is increased (second, third, seventh, and last sentences)
        • This amount of resistance is compared to two pieces of sandpaper rubbing against each other (last sentence)
      • On the other hand, when plates move in the same direction, the resulting subduction is high velocity and steep, the amount of friction between places is lower, and there is a lower likelihood of earthquakes (fourth, fifth, and sixth sentences)
        • This type of deduction is compared to an oar being dipped in water from a moving boat (fifth sentence)

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Implications: Areas with "low" subduction may be at a greater risk of earthquakes than previously thought
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Author's attitude: "provides a warning" (first sentence); "may in fact be at a significant risk of earthquakes" (last sentence)

Main Point: Some scientists believe that the type of subduction caused by two plates moving in the same direction can explain why some regions feature intense subduction and relatively few earthquakes.

Key Lines?

Paragraph 1, Sentence 7 (P1, S7) - Question

P2, S8-9 - Answer

P3, S1 - Implications

Meta-Structure?

Question/Answer: We think the Question/Answer Meta-Structure is the closest fit for this passage*. In such a passage, the author will usually pose a question and consider one or more answers for the rest of the passage. And that's the approach that this author uses. After providing some background information on plate tectonics and seismic "hot zones," the author asks a question: "[H]ow can often intense subduction take place at certain locations with little or no seismic activity?" (P1, S7). The author uses the remaining two paragraphs to discuss the answer to this question.

In such a passage, the main point is typically the answer. Here, the author seems to buy the explanation offered by a group of scientists who believe earthquakes are more likely to occur when plates collide when sliding toward each other rather than sliding in the same direction. So, we've summarized that answer as, "Some scientists believe that the type of subduction caused by two plates moving in the same direction can explain why some regions feature intense subduction and relatively few earthquakes."

*Truthfully, about half of the Meta-Structures could describe this passage. Certainly, you could call this a Phenomenon/Explanation, Proposing a Hypothesis, Correcting the Record, Reporting a Viewpoint, or Old Approach/New Approach passage. One could even make a reasonable case that this is a Paradox/Resolution or Problem/Solution passage. Any one of these Meta-Structures could help us understand the passage's structure and main point. Ultimately we went with Question/Answer because the passage explicitly proposes a question and discusses the answer. But if you went with one of the other Meta-Structures, that's OK. Remember, the Meta-Structures are tools that help us think about the overarching structure and ideas in a passage. We don't have to agree on which Meta-Structure a passage has to realize the benefits of the Meta-Structures, as this passage illustrates.

Comparisons: This passage — especially the second paragraph — utilizes the comparison minor Meta-Structure extensively. Most of the comparisons deal with the difference between the two types of subduction zones. We will almost certainly get a few questions that relate to these differences, so let's review the details of each.

  • Head-on subduction:
    • More likely to lead to earthquakes.
    • Subduction is relatively motionless.
    • Subduction occurs at a shallower angle of descent.
    • There is a larger plane of contact with the plates and thus more friction and seismic activity.
  • Same-direction subduction
    • Less likely to lead to earthquakes.
    • Subduction occurs at a high velocity.
    • Subduction occurs at a steeper angle of descent.
    • There is less contact between the plats and thus less friction and seismic activity.

Last Thoughts?

Let's make sure we understand these two types of subduction for the inevitable Minor Point questions about them. A stumbling block for many test-takers is that the fast-moving, steep-descending plates that experience significant resistance from the mantle are less likely to cause earthquakes. Expect the test-writers to try to trick us by playing up that counterintuitive fact.

Question prompt

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

Credited answer: C

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

Question Type

Science

Strategy Overview

Review the new proposal about the connection between seismic activity and the type of plate collision, determine weaknesses in that claim to anticipate how to weaken it, and select the answer choice that makes the claim less convincing

Answer Anticipation

We'll approach Weaken questions in Reading Comprehension in a very similar manner as we would in Logical Reasoning. We can review the excerpt from the passage, just like we'd carefully read an argument in LR. We'll then interrogate the claim for any weaknesses, as the correct answer on both RC and LR will probably weaken the claim by exploiting a problem. Additionally, causation flaws are commonplace on Weaken questions in both RC and LR, so we should be especially mindful of those.Here, we're asked to weaken the "proposal relating the amount of seismic activity to the type of collision between tectonic plates." This is the passage's main point, so we might not need to review the passage to recall the details of this proposal (though we can if necessary). This proposal holds that when plates move toward each other, the resulting subduction is relatively motionless and shallow, the amount of friction is higher, and the likelihood of earthquakes is increased (P2, S2-3, S7-8). On the other hand, when plates move in the same direction, the resulting subduction is high velocity and steep, the amount of friction between places is lower, and there is a lower likelihood of earthquakes (P2, S4-6).These are causal claims. The most common way to weaken a causal claim on the LSAT is by undermining the correlation. For example, we may see an answer choice state that one of the causes occurs, but the effect doesn't follow. There are multiple combinations of what could be a correct "cause without the effect" answer choice in this case. Alternatively, the correct answer could show an effect produced without one of the causes preceding it. This technique is often called "effect without the cause." There are, again, multiple examples of this what a possible "effect without the cause" correct answer might say. So, rather than predicting every possible iteration of "cause without the effect" or "effect without the cause" answer choices, let's keep the cause and effect of each type of deduction in mind and assess the answer choices.Moreover, many things could feasibly weaken the proposal linking the type of collision to the amount of seismic activity ,: so we should keep an open mind as we progress through the answer choices. We'll start by asking ourselves, "Does this make the relation between the type of collision to the amount of seismic activity less convincing?"

Answer choices

  1. A
    Some regions where seismic Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Does this make the relation between the type of collision to the amount of seismic activity less convincing?

    Nope. This is entirely consistent with the new proposal, so we can eliminate this one.

  2. B
    There are areas in Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Does this make the relation between the type of collision to the amount of seismic activity less convincing?

    Not quite. This is the question the passage tries to answer — why are there areas where plates collide, subduction occurs, but little resulting seismic activity (P1, S7)? Rather than undermine the new answer — these areas may have plates moving in the same direction, which produces less friction — this answer choice just re-states the question.

  3. C
    There are areas where Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C matches the stem

    (C) Does this make the relation between the type of collision to the amount of seismic activity less convincing?

    Yep! This provides, as we anticipated, an example of the cause without the effect. The theory posits that collisions that produce shallow subduction (the cause) should result in many earthquakes (the effect). This answer choice provides an example of the cause appearing without the effect following. This undermines the correlation between the type of subduction and the likelihood of earthquakes. So, this answer choice presents the greatest challenge to the proposal the passage advances.

  4. D
    The size of the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Does this make the relation between the type of collision to the amount of seismic activity less convincing?

    Nope. Like (A), this reflects a component of the new proposal. That proposal holds the angle of subduction changes the amount of contact between plates (P2, S7-8). So, rather than undermine the new proposal, this just relates one part of that proposal.

  5. E
    There is an area Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Does this make the relation between the type of collision to the amount of seismic activity less convincing?

    Negative. Like answer choices (A) and (D), this is consistent with the new proposal. That proposal argues that steep subduction angles usually lead to low seismic activity. So, this doesn't present new information that's inconsistent with the passage's proposal.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A 12%
  2. B 12%
  3. C Credited 57%
  4. D 8%
  5. E 11%

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

  • Why C 1 reply

    Started by Meredith