Reading comp PrepTest 153 · Section 1 · Question 8
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
There is information in
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
-
AHow does the escape Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 27-31) Paragraph 2 notes that the escape of species not native to an area can cause habitat destruction, but it doesn't mention how that happens. -
BWhat sort of shellfish Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
Incorrect. (Line 6) The passage establishes that shellfish are raised on fish farms, but it doesn't talk about which species. -
CApproximately how many kilograms Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 36-47) Paragraph 3 talks about the amount of fish meal needed to raise farm fish, but it gives only averages—it doesn't give specifics per species. -
DWhat proportion of the Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D matches the stem
Correct. Question Type:
Must Be True
Strategy Overview:
Use our notations and the passage to check to see if we can find an answer to the questions in the answer choices
Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
There's nothing to go off of here—the correct answer could refer to any small or big idea in the passage. As such, we need to consider each answer choice and check to see if our notations or understanding of the passage can help us find an answer to it quickly.
This question is all about time management—can we eliminate answers and select the right one without investing too much time?
Answer Explanation:
(Lines 5-7) This sounds like it's asking about background information, so we should check out the beginning where we noted that background and stats are given. There, we can see that a quarter of all shell/fish eaten by humans is from a fish farm, so there's an answer to this question. It is therefore correct.
Key Takeaway:
Wide-open questions like this are primarily about time management. Rely on your notes and understanding of the passage to quickly move through the answers, and defer on any that you don't know where to look for an answer. -
EHow long does it Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 55-59) Our note on niche markets should draw us to the end of Paragraph 4, but there's no discussion of timeline there, so this answer is incorrect.
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
No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.