Reading comp PrepTest 153 · Section 1 · Question 11
Passage
A recent worldwide decline of ocean fishery stocks has stimulated rapid growth in cultivated production of fish and shellfish, usually
Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage SummaryTopic: Science
Paragraph 1
Fish farming is paradoxical, in that there are ways it can cause both the decline and protection of ocean fishery stock.
Key Lines:
Lines 11-14 - An opposing point is introduced and the Author rebuts it
Lines 15-18 - The Author puts forward a paradox that she explores through the rest of the passage
Lines 19-23 - One side of the paradox is examined (negative side)
Lines 32-33 - Another part of the same side of the paradox is examined
Lines 48-55 - The other side of the paradox is examined (positive side)
Lines 55-57 - A factor that may counteract the positive side of the paradox is discussed
Meta-Structure:
Examination of a paradox. All paradoxes have two sides that seem to contradict each other.
When an RC passage introduces a paradox, it's generally the case that at least one paragraph will be dedicated to each side of the paradox, and then there's generally a concluding paragraph that either resolves the paradox or concludes that one side of it is wrong. Here, we get two paragraphs dedicated to one side of the paradox, one paragraph to the other, and no resolution of it. While the Author does discuss something that may counteract the "positive" side of the paradox, she doesn't state that the positive won't come to pass (wild fish stock won't rebound), or that the negative is destined to happen (wild fish stock decline).
So this passage is about the paradox—introducing and exploring it—instead of resolving the paradox. As such, we should make sure that we pick answers that reflect the uncertainty of the outcome, in the Author's opinion.
Last Thoughts:
Everything we said in the Meta-Structure section is true, but the Author here does spend more time on the downsides (Paragraphs 2 and 3, as opposed to half of Paragraph 4), introduces the paradox by stating that there's no evidence that fish farming will help with wild fish stock (Lines 13-14), and introduces something that will potentially counteract the positive effect of fish farming on the wild stock (Lines 55-57). So we should be willing to pick answers that, while reflecting uncertainty, are a little pessimistic towards how fish farming will affect wild fish stock populations.
Paragraph 1
- Paragraph note
- Background/stats are given, a view is put forward, and the Author disagrees with that view while introducing a paradox
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- (Stats) - We tag this so that we head back to this section for any question that deals with stats
- Some experts - Fish farming will restore wild fish populations
- Author - There's no evidence of that
- Paradox - Fish farming could solve or make worse declining ocean fishery populations
- Paragraph note
- First way that fish farming can threaten ocean fishery stock
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- High-volume fish farming causes pollution, ecological disruption, and disease
- Paragraph note
- Second (and more important) way that fish farming can threaten ocean fishery stock
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- More important - Fish farming requires a lot of fish meal/oil, to the point where more fish are required for farming that you get out
- Paragraph note
- First way that fish farming can help ocean fishery stock
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Reduce pressure by decreasing profitability or offering alternatives
- Examples - Salmon; tilapia/channel catfish/cod/haddock
- BUT! - Niche markets may undercut these benefits
Fish farming is paradoxical, in that there are ways it can cause both the decline and protection of ocean fishery stock.
Key Lines:
Lines 11-14 - An opposing point is introduced and the Author rebuts it
Lines 15-18 - The Author puts forward a paradox that she explores through the rest of the passage
Lines 19-23 - One side of the paradox is examined (negative side)
Lines 32-33 - Another part of the same side of the paradox is examined
Lines 48-55 - The other side of the paradox is examined (positive side)
Lines 55-57 - A factor that may counteract the positive side of the paradox is discussed
Meta-Structure:
Examination of a paradox. All paradoxes have two sides that seem to contradict each other.
When an RC passage introduces a paradox, it's generally the case that at least one paragraph will be dedicated to each side of the paradox, and then there's generally a concluding paragraph that either resolves the paradox or concludes that one side of it is wrong. Here, we get two paragraphs dedicated to one side of the paradox, one paragraph to the other, and no resolution of it. While the Author does discuss something that may counteract the "positive" side of the paradox, she doesn't state that the positive won't come to pass (wild fish stock won't rebound), or that the negative is destined to happen (wild fish stock decline).
So this passage is about the paradox—introducing and exploring it—instead of resolving the paradox. As such, we should make sure that we pick answers that reflect the uncertainty of the outcome, in the Author's opinion.
Last Thoughts:
Everything we said in the Meta-Structure section is true, but the Author here does spend more time on the downsides (Paragraphs 2 and 3, as opposed to half of Paragraph 4), introduces the paradox by stating that there's no evidence that fish farming will help with wild fish stock (Lines 13-14), and introduces something that will potentially counteract the positive effect of fish farming on the wild stock (Lines 55-57). So we should be willing to pick answers that, while reflecting uncertainty, are a little pessimistic towards how fish farming will affect wild fish stock populations.
Question prompt
The views put forward
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
Answer choices
-
AThey should be employed Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 15-18) The Author notes that the new method—fish farming—should be employed if it ends up being a solution to the decline in wild fish stock populations. Since fishing those populations is the traditional method of catching fish, this answer runs counter to the Author's argument—she believes that fish farming should be used if it does change (reduces) consumer demand for traditionally caught fish. -
BThey should be employed Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
Incorrect. The economic and job implications of the switch aren't discussed and are thus out of scope. -
CThey should not be Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C matches the stem
Correct. Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)
Strategy Overview:
Review the Author's opinion on new methods of food production and find an answer that aligns with it
Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
The question stem asks about new methods of food production, and the relevant one from the passage is the increasing use of fish farming to replace the fishing of wild fish stock, which is declining.
What's the Author's view on this? In Lines 15-18, she states that there's a paradox with the use of fish farming—it's a possible ""solution"" to the problem of declining wild fish stocks, but it's also a possible contributing factor to it. In framing the paradox in this way, the Author is committed to viewing the declining wild fish stocks as a bad thing—a problem—that needs a solution, and so she would say that a new method of food production needs to alleviate shortages or declines in the amount of food available.
Let's find an answer backing that up.
Answer Explanation:
(Lines 15-18) The paradox around which the Author bases her argument talks about the problem of declining wild fish stocks, and the new method potentially solving or making that problem worse. As such, the principle guiding her argument is about the amount of fish available, and so this answer is correct.
Key Takeaway:
As with Strengthen (Principle) questions in LR, the RC version of this question is asking us to find an answer that reflects the argument, connecting support to conclusion. Don't shoot past that, and use the Author's main point as the guiding light. -
DThey should be employed Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
Incorrect. (Paragraph 2; Lines 53-55) Lines 53-55 arguably state that the farmed fish diversify the types of food available by providing alternatives such as tilapia and channel catfish to certain ocean fish. However, Paragraph 2 talks about the negative environmental effects of the new method. That would line up with an answer saying a new method shouldn't be used if it hurts the environment, but it doesn't line up with one that says it should be used if it helps the environment. That's an illegal negation! -
EThey should be employed Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
Incorrect. (Line 1; Paragraph 2) It does appear as if fishing wild ocean fish is having a negative ecological effect in that those populations are declining. However, Paragraph 2 is about the negative ecological effects of the new method, so fish farming isn't replacing an ecologically harmful method with another. Especially since this answer sets up such a replacement as a necessary condition for making the switch.
What this tests
Question analytics
Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.
Answer choice distribution
Accounts
Save your place across PrepTests
Bookmark questions, build weak-spot lists, and pick up exactly where you left off—built for serious repeat practice.
No payment yet. We will only email when accounts open.
Already have an account? Log in
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
-
Please Explain 4 replies
Started by sprozes