PrepTest 132

[lcid:3624] Prep Test 132 LSAT — Reading Comp — S1 Reading comp

Passage

Questions 1-8  .        To study centuries-old earthquakes and the geologic  . faults that caused them, seismologists usually dig  . Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Science


Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • Traditional approach to dating earthquakes (radiocarbon dating of carbon 14 isotopes in organic material near faults)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Old approach:
      • Radiocarbon dating (of carbon 14 isotopes) of organic material trapped in sediments that show evidence of having shifted near fault lines (first through third sentence)
      • This can show the location and frequency of past earthquakes and the likelihood of future earthquakes (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • New approach to dating earthquakes (lichenometry — measuring lichen growth along rocks)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • New approach:
      • Bull and Brandon developed lichenometry, which involves measuring lichen growth along rocks exposed by rockfalls following earthquakes (first through fourth sentences)
      • The number of rockfalls can show how strong the earthquake was and the location of rockfalls can help map the earthquake's epicenter (seventh and last sentences)
    • Example of lichen's slow and steady growth:
      • North American lichen, which grows 9.5 mm/year (fifth sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "provides direct evidence" (sixth sentence); "would imply" (seventh sentence); "can then be determined" (last sentence)

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Author on disadvantages of radiocarbon dating (not accurate in last 300 years, as the environment affects isotopes) and Bull/Brandon's requirements for lichenometry (minimize/factor disturbances like snow, shade, wind)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Author's view:
      • Lichenometry has distinct advantages over radiocarbon dating, the latter of which is only accurate to within +/- 40 years and not of much use in the past 300 years (first through third sentences)
    • Bull and Brandon's view:
      • Lichenometry is accurate to within +/- 10 years and best in the past 500 years, but one needs to take into account the factors that can speed or slow lichen growth, like snow, wind, and shade (fifth through last sentences)
    • Cause-and-effect relationships:
      • Radiation on the Earth's upper atmosphere causes the amount of carbon 14 isotope to vary (second sentence)
      • Heavy radiation fluctuation in the last 300 years causes radiocarbon dating during this era to be useless (third sentence)
      • Snow avalanches and other disturbances can cause lichen growth to slow down (last sentence)
      • Shade and wind causes lichen growth to speed up (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "distinct advantages" (first sentence); "accurate only to within plus or minus 40 years" (second sentence); "fluctuated greatly" (third sentence); "of little value" (third sentence)

Main Point: Even though it requires careful site selection and calibration, lichenometry, a new technique for dating past earthquakes, has several advantages over the traditional radiocarbon dating technique.

Meta-Structure?

OldApproach/New Approach: This passage fits the Old Approach/New Approach Meta-Structure like a glove. In such a passage, the author will typically start by describing an old way of doing something or thinking about something. Often, this is referred to as the "traditional" approach or theory). The author will then describe a new, alternative way of doing or thinking about that same thing. Usually, the author prefers the new approach.

That's what happens here. The author introduces the "usual[]" technique in the first paragraph before shifting to the new technique in the second. When a passage utilizes this Old Approach/New Approach Meta-Structure, the author's opinion on the new approach is usually the main point. Here, the author feels that it has "distinct advantages" over the old technique, so we should ground our understanding of the main point in that view.

Last Thoughts?

Be careful with the end of this passage, starting in the fifth sentence of the last paragraph (beginning with "They note"). The author pivots here, stating that Bull and Brandon note some limitations on lichenometry — careful site selection and calibration. However, that doesn't undercut the author's claim that lichenometry has "distinct advantages" over radiocarbon dating, so we shouldn't feel as if this section is enough to make the author want to abandon the practice. That opening line of the third paragraph is still the clearest statement of the author's opinion.

Question prompt

The passage indicates that 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

Strategy Overview

Refer to notes or what you highlighted/underlined to locate where the passage discusses weaknesses in radiocarbon dating, and refer to the relevant part of the passage as needed to find that answer choice that must be true

Answer Anticipation

For questions that ask us to find a specific detail mentioned in the passage, quickly finding and reviewing that piece of information is paramount. That is why we make brief notes describing the role of each paragraph and highlight or underline definitions and the minor Meta-Structures — doing so helps us find the salient information efficiently and reliably. Once we review that part of the passage, we can look through the answer choices to see which one is best supported by what we reviewed.Here, the question asks why using radiocarbon dating to date past earthquakes may be unreliable. Where did the passage discuss weaknesses in radiocarbon dating? Our note for the third paragraph reads, in part, "Author on disadvantages of radiocarbon dating (not accurate in last 300 years, as the environment affects isotopes)." That note also suggests a possible answer to this question — the environment affects isotopes, so radiocarbon dating may be unreliable. But let's review the beginning of the third paragraph to get a more precise anticipation.Reviewing the passage, we see that the author claims that radiocarbon dating's accuracy is limited because "the amount of the carbon 14" in the environment depends on radiation hitting the Earth, and this radiation varies — especially during the past 300 years (P3, S2-S3). So, let's look for any answer bringing up radiation rates varying or the amount of carbon 14 changing over time.

Answer choices

  1. A
    the multiplicity of the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Does this say that radiocarbon dating can be unreliable because radiation rates can vary or the amount of carbon 14 can change over time?

    Nope. So, we can cross off (A). Besides, the passage doesn't provide any support for this answer choice. While the author does note that radiocarbon dating is applied to "wood or other organic material" (P1, S2), the author doesn't argue that this is a problem.

  2. B
    the variable amount of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Does this say that radiocarbon dating can be unreliable because radiation rates can vary or the amount of carbon 14 can change over time?

    No. Let's eliminate (B). Besides, the passage doesn't imply that this is true. When discussing this topic in the first paragraph, the author doesn't mention variable amounts of organic materials, and the author definitely doesn't say it's a problem in any way.

  3. C
    the fact that fault Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Does this say that radiocarbon dating can be unreliable because radiation rates can vary or the amount of carbon 14 can change over time?

    Negative. So, we can toss out (C). Besides, the passage doesn't suggest that this is true. The author says that radiocarbon dating "usually" involves digging along visible fault lines (P1, S1). That doesn't suggest that seismologists can't use it when the fault lines are hidden or that they measure the carbon 14 isotopes in other ways.

  4. D
    the fluctuations in the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D matches the stem

    (D) Does this say that radiocarbon dating can be unreliable because radiation rates can vary or the amount of carbon 14 can change over time?

    Yes! We can confidently select (D) and move on to the next question. After all, the author says this is a problem for radiocarbon dating, leading to it being accurate "only" to within 40 years (P3, S2).

  5. E
    the possibility that radiation Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Does this say that radiocarbon dating can be unreliable because radiation rates can vary or the amount of carbon 14 can change over time?

    Not quite. So, we can cross off (E). Still, this is a tricky answer, as it relates to the weakness identified in the passage. However, it's ultimately incorrect because the passage talks about the variability in the radiation hitting the atmosphere (P3, S2) — it doesn't identify as a problem the possibility that, at some point in the past, there was no radiation hitting the upper atmosphere.

What this tests

Discussion

No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.