Reading comp PrepTest 153 · Section 1 · Question 12
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 statements in the
Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right
Credited answer: D
The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.
Question Type
Science
Answer choices
-
AMost farmed fish are Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 43-47) Carnivorous fish were mentioned at the end of Paragraph 3, but there's no statement there backing up that ""[m]ost"" farmed fish are carnivorous. In fact, the Author speaks about carnivorous fish in the wild. -
BFarmed and wild fish Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
Incorrect. (Paragraph 3) Paragraph 3 talked about the food consumed by farmed fish, but it was never compared to the food consumed by wild fish. At best, it compared farmed fish to wild carnivores. -
CPollution is currently more Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
Incorrect. (Paragraph 1) Paragraph 1 brought up the background information, and while it does establish that wild fish populations are declining, it doesn't go into specifics as to what the causes are, let alone which causes are more damaging than others. -
DMarket forces can either Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D matches the stem
Correct. Question Type:
Must Be True
Strategy Overview:
Reiterate the Author's main point and then use the passage to confirm an answer that lines up with it
Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
In general, for a question such as this one, we remind ourselves of the main point and any concessions the Author made, and then we find an answer that lines up with those.
Here, though, there's an interesting twist—since the Author's argument revolved around a paradox, it inherently involves contradictory beliefs! On the one hand, the Author believes that fish farming could solve the problem of declining wild fish stock. On the other hand, she believes that it could make the problem worse.
As such, we're going to have to rely on our overall understanding of the passage to work through these answers.
Answer Explanation:
(Lines 15-18; Paragraph 4) The Author kicks off her argument by stating that the ""production systems"" for fish farms can either help or hurt wild fish populations. She expands on this in Paragraph 4 on this by discussing how supply can affect prices and help wild fish populations while niche markets can crop up that hurt those populations. As such, this answer reflects her argument, so it's the correct answer.
Key Takeaway:
The Author's main point here revolved around a paradox—something could serve as both a solution and exacerbating force in addressing a problem. Note how the correct answer doesn't address that idea directly, but it does reflect the paradoxical nature of the Author's argument! -
EThe market for wild-caught Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 5-7; Lines 55-59) The Author notes that farm fish account for about a quarter of all fish consumed, so wild-caught fish must currently make up the other three quarters. As such, that market can't ""remain a small one"" since it's not currently small. She also concludes by talking about how catch rates for wild-caught fish are remaining high for certain fish because of niche markets that are developing. Be careful here—this answer is a lot more tempting if you misread it to be about farmed fish!
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 1 reply
Started by sprozes