Reading comp PrepTest 157 · Section 4 · Question 22
Passage
Political arguments about biodiversity and the preservation of endangered species generally assume we know what a species is. Yet answering
Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary Topic:
Science
Paragraph 1
Main Point:
There's a debate in how to classify bird species between "lumpers," who use the "biological species concept" to guide their decisionmaking, and "splitters" like Charles G. Sibley, who use an increasingly popular "phylogenetic approach," and this debate is likely to have political and economic implications.
Key Lines?
Paragraph 1, Sentences 4-5 (P1, S4-S5) - Def. of one side of debate ("lumpers")
P1, S6-S7 - Def. of other side of debate ("splitters")
P2, S2 - Important ex. of "splitter" (Sibley)
P3, S2 - Criticism of ex.
P4, S1 - Author's conclusion
Meta-Structure?
Describing a Debate: There's clearly a debate in this passage. On the one side, we have the until-recently dominant "lumpers," who use their biological species concept to group similar bird populations into one species. On the other side, we have the ascendant "splitters," who may include the controversial Charles G. Sibley among their ranks. They divide bird populations into separate species using the phylogenetic approach. A passage featuring a debate could either utilize a Describe a Debate or a Resolve a Debate Meta-Structure — it all depends on whether the author is passive or active in the passage. A passive author will generally describe the debate without taking a side or attempting to reconcile the two sides. An active author will argue that one side is preferable or that both sides can get along. The author spends nearly the entire passage describing both sides of this ornithological debate, which means this passage is better understood as a Describe a Debate passage. Accordingly, the main point will represent the two sides of the debate (or simply assert that there is a debate). However, there is an important wrinkle: the author's conclusion asserts that this debate "undoubtedly has political and economic stakes." This will need to be part of the main point as well.
List: This passage is also organized around a list: the two sides of the debate. This list is mostly confined to the first paragraph, although the "splitter" side gets fleshed out with the discussion of Charles G. Sibley in the second and third paragraphs. When the author organizes a passage around items on a list, it's a good idea to note or remember where each item was discussed. We're likely to get several Minor Detail questions about each side, so be prepared to refer back to your notes and passage as needed.
Examples: The author also makes good use of examples in this passage. The primary example is Charles G. Sibley, who is described in the second and third paragraphs. We also learned about a few examples of controversial reclassifications Sibley supported at the end of the second paragraph. We get an example of a criticism of Sibley's work in the third paragraph. Finally, we get an example of one of the political and economical implications of the species question at the end of the passage. When a passage has this many examples, we are bound to get a question about at least one of them. The question could be about the specific example itself or the general idea the example illustrates. So, let's list both:
First, let's note that many test-takers tend to overestimate the importance of people in passages. Such test-takers tend to think any person mentioned is likely to be the main subject. Call it the anthropocentric fallacy, if you'd like. Such test-takers will probably think Charles G. Sibley (who, in fairness, did take up a lot of real estate in this passage) is the main subject. Many wrong answer choices to the Main Point and other big-picture questions will try to entice such test-takers by emphasizing Sibley's centrality to the passage. We should start by noting that Sibley was just an example of one side of the central debate in this passage (notice how he was introduced — "The late Charles G. Sibley ... could be called a splitter" (P2, S1)). Second, this is an exceptionally detail-centric passage, defined by lists and numerous examples. Expect many minor-detail questions to follow. We'll probably have to look back at the passage more than we'd like to, but we won't have time to look back for every question, much less every answer choice in every question. If possible, try to remember the main point and memorize some basic facts about each side of the central debate. To the latter point, try to remember the following: "Lumpers" use the biological species concept, which focuses on whether populations interbreed in the wild. In contrast, "splitters" use the phylogenetic approach, which focuses on whether members of a population share a genetically traceable feature. Remembering those basic facts will help us avoid some unnecessary fact-finding missions in the passage.
Science
Paragraph 1
- Paragraph note
- Two approaches to classifying bird species: Lumpers (biological species concept) vs. splitters (phylogenetic approach)
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- List of approaches, item 1: Lumper/Biological Species
- Group similar species together
- Interbreed in wild → single species
- Until recently dominant approach
- List of approaches, item 2: Splitter/Phylogenetic
- Divide similar species
- "Diagnosable" ancestry (distinctive, genetically traceable features) → single species
- Increasingly popular
- Author's attitude: "confusing and controversial exercise" (second sentence)
- List of approaches, item 1: Lumper/Biological Species
- Paragraph note
- of "splitter": Sibley's DNA-DNA hybridization and revisions to species classifications
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- of Sibley's revision: North/South American vultures more similar to storks than European vultures (last sentence)
- of Sibley's revision: Loons and grebes not related (last sentence)
- Author's attitude: "controversial revolution" (first sentence)
- Paragraph note
- Criticism and defense of Sibley
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- of criticism: Sibley making arbitrary interpretations of DNA evidence
- Sibley defense: For practical reasons must limit the number of differences we accept in the same species, even if this is "slippery"
- Paragraph note
- Author's conclusion: Political and economic implications of the species question
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Ex of implication: Increasing number of species increases the number of species needing protection (last sentence)
Main Point:
There's a debate in how to classify bird species between "lumpers," who use the "biological species concept" to guide their decisionmaking, and "splitters" like Charles G. Sibley, who use an increasingly popular "phylogenetic approach," and this debate is likely to have political and economic implications.
Key Lines?
Paragraph 1, Sentences 4-5 (P1, S4-S5) - Def. of one side of debate ("lumpers")
P1, S6-S7 - Def. of other side of debate ("splitters")
P2, S2 - Important ex. of "splitter" (Sibley)
P3, S2 - Criticism of ex.
P4, S1 - Author's conclusion
Meta-Structure?
Describing a Debate: There's clearly a debate in this passage. On the one side, we have the until-recently dominant "lumpers," who use their biological species concept to group similar bird populations into one species. On the other side, we have the ascendant "splitters," who may include the controversial Charles G. Sibley among their ranks. They divide bird populations into separate species using the phylogenetic approach. A passage featuring a debate could either utilize a Describe a Debate or a Resolve a Debate Meta-Structure — it all depends on whether the author is passive or active in the passage. A passive author will generally describe the debate without taking a side or attempting to reconcile the two sides. An active author will argue that one side is preferable or that both sides can get along. The author spends nearly the entire passage describing both sides of this ornithological debate, which means this passage is better understood as a Describe a Debate passage. Accordingly, the main point will represent the two sides of the debate (or simply assert that there is a debate). However, there is an important wrinkle: the author's conclusion asserts that this debate "undoubtedly has political and economic stakes." This will need to be part of the main point as well.
List: This passage is also organized around a list: the two sides of the debate. This list is mostly confined to the first paragraph, although the "splitter" side gets fleshed out with the discussion of Charles G. Sibley in the second and third paragraphs. When the author organizes a passage around items on a list, it's a good idea to note or remember where each item was discussed. We're likely to get several Minor Detail questions about each side, so be prepared to refer back to your notes and passage as needed.
Examples: The author also makes good use of examples in this passage. The primary example is Charles G. Sibley, who is described in the second and third paragraphs. We also learned about a few examples of controversial reclassifications Sibley supported at the end of the second paragraph. We get an example of a criticism of Sibley's work in the third paragraph. Finally, we get an example of one of the political and economical implications of the species question at the end of the passage. When a passage has this many examples, we are bound to get a question about at least one of them. The question could be about the specific example itself or the general idea the example illustrates. So, let's list both:
- Second and third paragraph: Charles G. Sibley, a controversial example of the "splitter" approach to species classification
- End of the second paragraph: North/South Am. vultures more closely related to storks than European vultures, an example of Sibley's controversial findings
- End of the second paragraph: Loons and grebes not related, an example of Sibley's controversial findings
- Third paragraph: Criticism of "arbitrary" nature of Sibley's approach, an example of the controversy surrounding Sibley's approach
- Fourth paragraph: Increasing number of species would increase the number of species needing protection, an example of the political/economic stakes surrounding species classification
First, let's note that many test-takers tend to overestimate the importance of people in passages. Such test-takers tend to think any person mentioned is likely to be the main subject. Call it the anthropocentric fallacy, if you'd like. Such test-takers will probably think Charles G. Sibley (who, in fairness, did take up a lot of real estate in this passage) is the main subject. Many wrong answer choices to the Main Point and other big-picture questions will try to entice such test-takers by emphasizing Sibley's centrality to the passage. We should start by noting that Sibley was just an example of one side of the central debate in this passage (notice how he was introduced — "The late Charles G. Sibley ... could be called a splitter" (P2, S1)). Second, this is an exceptionally detail-centric passage, defined by lists and numerous examples. Expect many minor-detail questions to follow. We'll probably have to look back at the passage more than we'd like to, but we won't have time to look back for every question, much less every answer choice in every question. If possible, try to remember the main point and memorize some basic facts about each side of the central debate. To the latter point, try to remember the following: "Lumpers" use the biological species concept, which focuses on whether populations interbreed in the wild. In contrast, "splitters" use the phylogenetic approach, which focuses on whether members of a population share a genetically traceable feature. Remembering those basic facts will help us avoid some unnecessary fact-finding missions in the passage.
Question prompt
Which one of the
Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right
Credited answer: E
The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.
Question Type
Science
Answer choices
-
AIt is becoming increasingly Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
The author didn't make any claims about actually protecting endangered species, so this is irrelevant to the author's assertion. -
BIncreasing the number of Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
Even if it's true that reclassifying species will create more bird populations than mammal populations, it doesn't necessarily follow that more species will need protection following reclassification. And that's because this doesn't address the part vs. whole issue described in the Answer Anticipation section. As discussed above, if the lumper-defined species considered endangered each have only one population regarded as endangered, it wouldn't matter how many new species we made after reclassification. Even if we split the species up as finely as possible, to the point that each population is now considered a new species, we still wouldn't increase the number of endangered species. -
CIn disputes over protection Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
This is wrong for the same reason as (A). The author didn't make a claim about how easy it will be to actually protect the species. The author only asserted that the number of species that need protection will increase. So, this answer choice is irrelevant to the author's assertion at the end of the passage. -
DAdvances in scientific techniques Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
So what? The author never claimed that the most likely result of species reclassification is more species. The author just said that if there are more species, there will probably need to be more species needing protection. Another irrelevant answer choice. -
EProponents of the phylogenetic Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E matches the stem
Question Type:
Application/Strengthen
Strategy Overview:
Review the author's assertion from the final sentence, anticipate weaknesses in that assertion to anticipate how to improve the assertion, then select the answer choice that makes the assertion more convincing
Answer Anticipation:
We'll approach Strengthen questions in Reading Comprehension in a very similar manner as we would in Logical Reasoning. We should review the excerpt from the passage, just like we'd carefully read an argument in LR. We should then interrogate the passage or argument for any weaknesses, as the correct answer on both RC and LR will probably strengthen the passage or argument by fixing a problem. Additionally, causation flaws are commonplace on Strengthen questions in both RC and LR, so we should be especially mindful of those.
Applying that approach here, we'll note that the author claims that one political and economic implication of species classification is that "increasing the number of species would probably increase the number needing protection as well." This is not quite making a causal claim, so we should look for other problems. So are there any reasons why increasing the number of species might not increase the number of species that need protection?
Test-takers well-versed in the common flaws on the LSAT might note that this author is committing a part vs. whole fallacy. On the one hand, the author assumes that lumper-classified species that are considered endangered have multiple individual populations that are endangered. To illustrate this fallacy, let's suppose the lumpers have grouped bird populations A, B, and C into one species. Let's also suppose that this species as a whole is considered endangered. The author assumes that if we take the splitters' approach and divide this population into species A, B, and C, at least two of those new species will also be endangered. Otherwise, increasing the number of species wouldn't increase the number of species needing protection. However, this is suspect reasoning. Maybe the lumpers' A/B/C species is considered endangered because only one of its constituent populations is considered endangered.
Conversely, the author also assumes that lumper-classified species with only one endangered population will not be regarded as endangered. To illustrate this assumption, let's again suppose the lumpers have grouped bird populations A, B, and C into one species. This time, let's also suppose that populations A and B are teeming with healthy and hale birds, but population C is endangered. The author assumes that because the lumper-classified A/B/C species as a whole isn't endangered, the lumpers won't consider the species endangered (even though one of its populations is). So if we adopt the splitters' approach and divide populations A, B, and C into three separate species, we'd increase the number of endangered species by one. We previously didn't think the lumpers' A/B/C species were endangered, but we must now consider species C endangered after dividing them into species A, B, and C. This is specious reasoning, however. It's not necessarily true that the lumpers wouldn't consider the A/B/C species as endangered. Perhaps the lumpers will conclude a species is endangered if even just one population within that species is endangered.
Or, maybe the above situations are incredibly uncommon. Perhaps almost all of the populations lumped together are not endangered at all. In the above examples, let's assume that none of populations A, B, and C were endangered. In that case, increasing the number of species by splitting the populations into three separate species wouldn't increase the number of endangered species. At any rate, we've interrogated the author's claim and found multiple issues with it. The correct answer will likely fix one of the issues, thereby strengthening the author's claim.
Answer Choice Explanation:
This answer choice fixes one of the problems we identified in the Answer Anticipation section above. We identified one situation in which increasing the number of species might not result in more species needing protection. As described in the final paragraph of that section, let's assume the lumpers grouped the populations A, B, and C into one species, but none of populations A, B, or C were regarded as endangered. In that case, the lumpers wouldn't think the species as a whole needed protection. Even if the splitters came along and divided that species into three new species, none of the new species would need protection either. This answer choice fixes this issue by saying that the splitters wouldn't both reclassify the lumpers' A/B/C species. So the only times the splitters would reclassify species is when the species has one or more endangered populations. This would make it more likely that increasing the number of species through "splitting" would result in more species needing protection. Therefore, this strengthens the argument, and it is the correct answer.
Key Takeaway:
Identifying flaws is the most useful skill one can develop for Logical Reasoning, and it occasionally helps with Reading Comprehension as well.
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
-
Confused on question. 1 reply
Started by jordierose02
-
- 1 reply
Started by Hanfan