Reading comp PrepTest 153 · Section 1 · Question 9
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
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
Answer choices
-
Amaking up for the Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 10-11) The Experts do believe that fish farming will help compensate for the decline in wild-caught fish populations, but that's a separate idea. The passage notes that the relieving of pressure is ""in addition"" to helping to compensate for the decline, so it can't mean the same thing. -
Bsupplementing the incomes of Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 9-13) There's no mention of money in this section, so this answer is out of scope. -
Ccausing fewer wild fish Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C matches the stem
Correct. Question Type:
Must Be True
Strategy Overview:
Head back to the phrase in question and read that section for context, using our notations for the role of the paragraph to add to our understanding
Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
The first paragraph introduced the debate/paradox around fish farming—some think that it'll restore wild fish populations, but the Author believes that there's no evidence of that, and it could go either way.
The phrase in question is in Line 12-13. It's what ""[s]ome experts"" believe—the opposing point that believes fish farming will restore wild fish populations. This will result in a restoration of the wild fish populations. If that's the case, then those experts must mean that the fish farming will supply a lot of the fish that humans eat, allowing for fewer wild fish to be caught and thus restoring their population. Let's find an answer reflecting that.
Answer Explanation:
(Lines 11-13) The passage notes that Experts believe that relieving pressure on ocean fisheries will ""restore wild populations,"" so there's a causal relationship. By arguing that fish farms will restore wild populations by relieving the pressure on them, it must be the case that the fish farms are causing fewer of the wild fish to be caught, thus resulting in their populations growing. This answer reflects the argument of the experts, so it's the correct answer.
Key Takeaway:
We're going to focus on (A) for this takeaway. In these ""What does it mean?"" RC questions, there will frequently be a second idea in the same sentence or section that is said to be also or additionally true. Don't conflate the two ideas! That other idea will almost certainly be given as a trap answer, trying to get you to pick the answer that is directly stated in the text. Note that this is different than an idea that is a rephrasing of the statement in question. It's the difference between what we see here and a separate statement connected with, for example, ""in other words"". -
Dreducing the amount of Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 9-13) Similar to answer choice (B), economics aren't discussed by the Experts, so this answer is out of scope. -
Ereducing overall demand for Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 9-13) By identifying an increasing alternative supply of fish, the Experts suggest that there wouldn't need to be a decline in overall demand for fish in order to address the problem of declining wild fish populations, 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.