PrepTest 141

[lcid:3660] Prep Test 141 LSAT — Reading Comp — S1 Reading comp

Passage

Questions 1-7  .       Charles Darwin objected to all attempts to reduce  . his theory of evolution to its doctrine of Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage SummaryTopic: Science

Paragraph 1
  • Paragraph note
    • A theory is introduced, and a new interpretation at odds with the original
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Darwin - Natural selection is the primary but not only driver of evolution
    • Strict Constructionist Darwinists (SCD) - Natural selection explains 1) all attributes, and 2) survival
Paragraph 2
  • Paragraph note
    • An implication of the new interpretation is shown to be wrong
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Natural selection - adaptations to environment to reproduce more
    • If SCDs are right, then all traits/survival due to adaptations
    • Nature has many examples where that's not the case
Paragraph 3
  • Paragraph note
    • Examples - DNA/traits (rebuts SCD view #1)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Neutral, nonadaptive changes that persist and change traits but don't affect reproduction
Paragraph 4
  • Paragraph note
    • Examples - Survival/traits (rebuts SCD view #2)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Dinosaurs/mammals during meteorite strike - former died out and latter survived based on traits they had
    • Example of survival based on "dumb luck," not adaptation
Main Point:
Examples of DNA mutations and events from history show that the assumptions and implications of the Strict Constructionist Darwinists, who hold natural selection explains all traits and survival, are wrong.

Key Lines:
Lines 3-4 - The traditional view is noted
Lines 8-12 - The new view is described
Lines 16-22 - The Author rebuts the new view by showing a necessary implication of it to be false (counterexamples)
Lines 27-28 - The Author highlights new information calling into question a part of the new view
Lines 37-40 - The Author highlights analysis that calls into question a part of the new view

Meta-Structure:
Traditional vs. New View - Usually, the Author brings up a new view in order to advocate for it, but here, she instead undermines it. She uses examples in two different areas (genetics in Paragraph 3; paleontology in Paragraph 4) to show that individual elements of the new view are wrong (Paragraph 3 - their view on adaptations and reproductive success; Paragraph 4 - their view on adaptations and species survival).

Last Thoughts:
We expect that a good number of questions are going to rely on us distinguishing between the role and examples in Paragraphs 3 and 4. It's almost always key to know the role of each paragraph and the locations of examples, so having a strong understanding of these two paragraphs will be key.

Also, note that as introduced in the first paragraph, the SCD view focuses on two things—"aspect[s] of every species' form and behavior", and "the success or failure of species." Whenever there are multiple "parts" to a view, you should check to see if that ends up being reflected in the structure. Here, it would have been easy to miss that, while Paragraph 2 addresses the view as a whole, Paragraphs 3 and 4 each address an individual part of it. Paragraph 3 addresses the first part about form and behavior, and Paragraph 4 addresses the second part about survival. Noting this should make it easier to distinguish these two paragraphs as we work through the questions.

It's very common for a passage to break down an argument into constituent parts and then address them individually, though it doesn't always do so explicitly—in this case, it's not particularly explicit! But if you can find such a breakdown and structure to the passage, you'll be in very good shape for tackling the questions.

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

  1. A
    It outlines the objections Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 19-22) The Author comes out against the SCDs in this paragraph, so its function isn't to list the objections of the SCDs to the old theory.
  2. B
    It lists recent evidence Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 19-20) This is a tempting answer that lines up with the Author's overall point! However, Paragraph 2 isn't where recent evidence is listed. It's referenced in saying that nature provides counterexamples, but the examples/evidence itself doesn't start until Paragraph 3.
  3. C
    It describes the strict Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 19-22) Paragraph 1 is really where the view of the SCDs is described—this paragraph instead brings up an implication of that view being correct. And this answer also misses the part where the Author brings up the "numerous" counterexamples that disprove the SCDs view.
  4. D
    It enumerates the arguments Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 16-19) Another tempting answer! This lines up with the purpose of the passage as a whole. However, Paragraph 2 doesn't bring up the arguments for the SCD view. Rather, it brings up what is true if they're correct. The implications of a view aren't the arguments for that view, so this answer misses the mark.
  5. E
    It explains the ramifications Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem
    Correct. Question Type:
    Argument Structure

    Strategy Overview:
    Review our note for the role of Paragraph 2

    Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
    Other than it being helpful for developing the main point and following the passage, we take notes on the role of each paragraph after reading it so that we can directly answer questions such as this one.

    Looking at our notes for Paragraph 2, we see that we said it's role was to show that an implication of the new interpretation—that of the Strict Constructionist Darwinists (SCDs)—is wrong. Digging into the details, we find that the Author establishes if they were correct, then an implication would follow. However, she then notes that there are "numerous examples" (Lines 19-20) in the world of that implication not being true.

    She then goes on to bring up some of those examples, all to rebut the view of the SCDs. Let's find an answer reflecting this role.

    Answer Explanation:
    (Lines 16-17; Lines 19-20) Tricky! This answer doesn't explicitly state that the Author uses this paragraph to begin her rebuttal of the SCDs. However, it does explain the ramifications of the SCD claims ("If the strict constructionists are right . . . "). And it previews the evidence in the later paragraphs by stating that nature provides "numerous examples" of them being wrong. In pivoting from the implication of their view to mentioning these examples, the Author is clarifying what that evidence is meant to rebut. This answer is therefore correct.

    Key Takeaway:
    As with Argument Structure questions in LR, you need to match up the abstract language in the answer with the concrete ideas from the passage. If things don't line up nicely, then you can eliminate that answer.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion