PrepTest 146

[lcid:3683] Prep Test 146 LSAT — Reading Comp — S4 Reading comp

Passage

 .       By 1970 it was well established that ultraviolet  . light from the sun contributes to skin cancer.  . Fortunately, Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage SummaryTopic: Science

Paragraph 1
  • Paragraph note
    • A problem and something mitigating that problem are noted
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Problem - The sun (UV radiation) causes skin cancer
    • Mitigation - The ozone layer blocks a lot of the UV radiation
Paragraph 2
  • Paragraph note
    • A problem with the mitigation is explored
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • 1970s - Two scientists show that CFCs are depleting the ozone layer
    • Lots of science
Paragraph 3
  • Paragraph note
    • A prediction is made and action is taken
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • 1974 - 5 years of CFCs accumulated, problem will keep getting worse
    • Action - The 2 scientists become public advocates
Paragraph 4
  • Paragraph note
    • Outcome of action
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • At first - Strong attacks by opponents, especially scientists at CFC companies
    • Turning point - Hole in ozone over Antarctica
    • Outcome - CFCs banned internationally
Main Point:
Because of the work of two scientists, the damage of CFCs to the ozone layer was recognized and then addressed by an international agreement.

Key Lines:
Lines 1-2 - A problem is introduced
Lines 3-6 - Something mitigating the problem is introduced
Lines 14-21 - A created problem with that mitigation is discussed, brought by 2 scientists
Lines 36-41 - A dire prediction is made
Lines 48-51 - An opposing point is made
Lines 51-53 - The view of the 2 scientists is vindicated
Lines 53-56 - The problem is addressed

Meta-Structure:
Problem/Solution - The passage has two levels of problems and solutions. The overarching problem is that UV radiation causes skin cancer (Lines 1-2), but that has a natural solution (Lines 3-6)—the ozone layer. However, humans have created a problem with that solution—according to 2 scientists, chemicals called CFCs are depleting the ozone layer (Lines 14-21). Their view is eventually vindicated (Lines 51-53), and a solution is put in place—an international ban on the production of the chemicals causing the problem (Lines 53-56).

Last Thoughts:
There was a whole lot of science in Paragraph 2. Don't try to understand/memorize it all. Instead, tag it, and head back to check details only when they're relevant to a question. You're not trying to earn a science degree here!

Question prompt

Which one of the 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

Answer choices

  1. A
    Little or no ozone Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 12-14) This is a tempting answer since it's CFCs and chlorine that are said to lead to the depletion of the ozone layer! However, this answer is about natural destruction of the ozone layer, not natural depletion. And the passage states that there's a natural equilibrium—ozone forms as quickly as it's destroyed. As such, naturally, there is ozone destruction, but it's balanced out by ozone creation.
  2. B
    Skin cancers occur primarily Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 1-2) The passage notes that UV radiation contributes to skin cancer. However, it doesn't compare it to other causes of skin cancer, so we can't pick this answer about it being a primary cause. Additionally, we don't know the mechanism by which UV radiation causes skin cancer—it might not be because of excessive absorption.
  3. C
    Few chemicals besides CFCs Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    Incorrect. The passage doesn't discuss chemicals other than CFCs, so this answer is out of scope. While you might reason that if there were other chemicals that could release chlorine, then the ozone would have been depleted before CFCs were in wide use, that's bad reasoning—maybe those other chemicals are extremely rare and thus don't contribute much chlorine.
  4. D
    Regulating the use of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D matches the stem
    Correct. Question Type:
    Must Be True

    Strategy Overview:
    Head straight to the answer choices and use our notes and the passage to find the correct one

    Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
    Similar to Question #23, the question stem here gives no guidance as to the topic of the correct answer, so we shouldn't spend a lot of time anticipating what will be correct. Instead, we should head straight to the answers and focus on the ones that line up with our overall understanding of the passage. From there, we can use our notes and the passage itself to check that answer.

    Answer Explanation:
    (Lines 3-6; Lines 26-28) This answer relies on a lot of causality in the passage, which is something that we should generally be tracking. We know that UV radiation causes skin cancer. We know that the ozone layer blocks UV radiation. And we know that CFCs deplete the ozone layer. As such, regulating CFCs would prevent the depletion of the ozone layer, resulting in more UV radiation being absorbed by it, and thus less UV radiation reaching humans and causing cancer. This answer is therefore supported by the stimulus, so it's the correct answer.

    Key Takeaway:
    Science passages are frequently about causal relationships. Be sure you at least note the general causality presented in the passage, even if you don't track each intervening step. Here, knowing that UV radiation causes cancer, the ozone layer causes less UV radiation to reach Earth, and CFCs cause the ozone layer to get depleted would have been enough to answer the question, without needing to track the individual steps of how CFCs cause damage outlined in Paragraph 2.
  5. E
    The upward flow of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 51-53; Lines 21-28) The hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica was noted as the vindication of M+R's views. However, the passage doesn't state that the depletion of the ozone layer accumulates where the CFCs flow upwards. It's possible that the damage to the ozone layer happens all over, but then for some reason it aggregates over Antarctica.

What this tests

Discussion