PrepTest 132

[lcid:3626] Prep Test 132 LSAT — Reading Comp — S3 Reading comp

Passage

Questions 8-13  .        A vigorous debate in astronomy centers on an  . epoch in planetary history that was first Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Science


Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • A phenomenon and why it’s important
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Phenomenon - Craters on Moon hint at Late Heavy Bombardment (LHB) 4b years ago - Should have struck Earth, too
    • Importants - Life couldn’t survive until it was over

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • Three theories about the LHB are stated
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Theory 1 - Large body broke up and hit inner solar system
    • Theory 2 - LHB was really billions of years of debris hitting inner solar system
    • Theory 3 - Large body in Earth/Moon broke up and hit those bodies

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • New evidence supporting a theory
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • New evidence - Rock on Earth might be from Mars, from around 4b years ago
    • Explanation - Bombardment through inner solar system dislodged rock and sent to Earth
    • Further studies needed for confirmation

Main Point: Though there are many theoretical approaches that explain the Moon’s craters and the LHB (how long it lasted; what astronomical bodies it hit), new evidence suggests that the LHB happened throughout the inner solar system, though more research is needed before that conclusion can be drawn with certainty.

Key Lines?

Lines 4-7 - The phenomenon

Line 17 - Theory 1 introduced

Line 21 - Theory 2 introduced

Line 31 - Theory 3 introduced

Lines 40-44 - New evidence introduced

Lines 51-53 - Implications of the new evidence

Lines 53-57 - More studies needed

Meta-Structure?

Phenomenon/Explanation - This passage falls into a common Meta-Structure for Science passages - the Phenomenon/Explanation structure. In this structure, a phenomenon is noted, and explanations - usually causal - are noted. The Author’s preferred explanation tends to serve as the main point. Here, the Phenomenon is described in Paragraph 1, and three approaches are described in Paragraph 2. The Author then presents new evidence in Paragraph 3 that lines up with two of the theories (see our discussion in the Last Thoughts? section), though she’s not fully committed to that view (Lines 53-57). So the main point is a little muddled here, as the Author’s explanation is partial (it addresses the scope of the LHB but not the time period - again, see the discussion in Last Thoughts?) and she thinks more studies are needed to reach the conclusion. This is all reflected in our main point, as written out above.

Last Thoughts?

This is a tough passage because of Paragraph 2, where three theories are outlined. If you didn’t think about how those theories overlap, and how they relate to Paragraph 3, the questions would be exceptionally difficult, so let’s talk about that now.

Looking at the three theories, while they are multifaceted, there are two elements that each speaks to - the time period of the “LHB,” and how widespread it was:

  • Theory 1 - It was a short time period when a single body broke apart, and it hit the entire inner solar system
  • Theory 2 - It was a long time period (billions of years), and it hit the entire inner solar system
  • Theory 3 - It was a short time period when a single body broke apart, and it was limited to the Earth and Moon

Note that each theory has something in common with each other theory!

Now, how does this relate to Paragraph 3? The evidence there supports the view that Mars was hit during the LHB, which suggests that the strikes spread throughout the inner solar system. This supports both Theories 1 and 2 while arguing against Theory 3. Without this view into how the theories relate and how the new evidence overlaps with them, you’d be in trouble for the questions!

Question prompt

The author's attitude toward Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: B

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Question Type

Science

Strategy Overview

Review what the Author says about conclusions from the Martian rock and then find an answer that matches the strength and conviction of her statements

Answer Anticipation

Lines 44-46 show up in Paragraph 3. That paragraph brought up new evidence that supported a subset of the theories on the LHB brought up by the Author in Paragraph 2.She starts off Paragraph 3 by saying that this rock “support[s] the hypothesis” that the LHB was widespread. She then describes why this is the case in detail, which suggests a strongly positive opinion. However, she then pivots a bit in Line 51 by calling the evidence “tiny” before making a bigger pivot in Line 53 (“However”) to saying that scientists “will need to locate many more” pieces of evidence before the pervasiveness of the LHB can be “determine[d]” (Lines 53-57).So the Author believes that the rock does provide some support for a certain hypothesis, but not nearly enough to allow for a conclusion to be drawn. Let’s find an answer matching that hesitation.

Answer choices

  1. A
    ambivalence because the theory Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) This is a tempting answer, but “ambivalence” doesn’t quite work here. While the Author doesn’t believe the Mars rock is definitive evidence, she does believe that it supports a given hypothesis - just more information is needed before a conclusion can be drawn. Ambivalence suggests mixed feelings, which isn’t the same as believing something is evidence but not sufficient evidence. It would require her to think that the evidence might or might not support the hypothesis. Additionally, this answer talks about implausibility of the rock’s migration to Earth - she says it “appears to be a rare example” of a Martian rock making it to Earth. That’s not a full commitment to the idea, but it also doesn’t express a view that it’s hard to believe.

  2. B
    caution because even if Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B matches the stem

    (B) (Lines 53-57) This answer perfectly matches the Author’s attitude towards the evidence in Paragraph 3. She believes that it does provide support for a hypothesis, but she cautions that concluding it proves that hypothesis is premature - after all “scientists will need to locate many more such rocks” and possibly do other studies to prove the hypothesis.

  3. C
    skepticism because it seems Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) (Lines 51-53) While the Author does call the evidence “tiny” and uses less-than-certain language (“seems to be”; “if the rock is indeed from Mars”), she also uses language suggesting that she does believe in this evidence. It provides “[n]ew support” for a hypothesis, and it “suggests that at least two” planetary bodies were involved in the LHB. That language is too definitive to count the Author’s attitude as skeptical.

  4. D
    curiosity because many details Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) (Lines 40-44; Lines 46-48) The Author speaks to the results of such experiments as if their conclusions are already released. Textural features and chemical makeup makes it seem to be from Mars, and it was recently dated to around 4b years ago. These are results, not assumptions, and so this answer is incorrect.

  5. E
    outright acceptance because the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) (Line 44; Lines 48-49; Lines 53-57) This answer is too positive. While the Author does seem to have a slightly positive view of the evidence, she also couches her statements (“seems to be”; “if the rock is indeed from Mars”), and she pivots to say that more information is needed before conclusions can be drawn.

What this tests

Discussion

  • Why not A? 1 reply

    Started by Shula

  • Choosing A 3 replies

    Started by Meredith