PrepTest 153

[lcid:3708] Prep Test 153 LSAT — Reading Comp — S1 Reading comp

Passage

 A recent worldwide decline of ocean fishery stocks has stimulated rapid growth in cultivated production of fish and shellfish, usually Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage SummaryTopic: Science

Paragraph 1
  • Paragraph note
    • Background/stats are given, a view is put forward, and the Author disagrees with that view while introducing a paradox
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • (Stats) - We tag this so that we head back to this section for any question that deals with stats
    • Some experts - Fish farming will restore wild fish populations
    • Author - There's no evidence of that
    • Paradox - Fish farming could solve or make worse declining ocean fishery populations
Paragraph 2
  • Paragraph note
    • First way that fish farming can threaten ocean fishery stock
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • High-volume fish farming causes pollution, ecological disruption, and disease
Paragraph 3
  • Paragraph note
    • Second (and more important) way that fish farming can threaten ocean fishery stock
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • More important - Fish farming requires a lot of fish meal/oil, to the point where more fish are required for farming that you get out
Paragraph 4
  • Paragraph note
    • First way that fish farming can help ocean fishery stock
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Reduce pressure by decreasing profitability or offering alternatives
    • Examples - Salmon; tilapia/channel catfish/cod/haddock
    • BUT! - Niche markets may undercut these benefits
Main Point:
Fish farming is paradoxical, in that there are ways it can cause both the decline and protection of ocean fishery stock.

Key Lines:
Lines 11-14 - An opposing point is introduced and the Author rebuts it
Lines 15-18 - The Author puts forward a paradox that she explores through the rest of the passage
Lines 19-23 - One side of the paradox is examined (negative side)
Lines 32-33 - Another part of the same side of the paradox is examined
Lines 48-55 - The other side of the paradox is examined (positive side)
Lines 55-57 - A factor that may counteract the positive side of the paradox is discussed

Meta-Structure:
Examination of a paradox. All paradoxes have two sides that seem to contradict each other.

When an RC passage introduces a paradox, it's generally the case that at least one paragraph will be dedicated to each side of the paradox, and then there's generally a concluding paragraph that either resolves the paradox or concludes that one side of it is wrong. Here, we get two paragraphs dedicated to one side of the paradox, one paragraph to the other, and no resolution of it. While the Author does discuss something that may counteract the "positive" side of the paradox, she doesn't state that the positive won't come to pass (wild fish stock won't rebound), or that the negative is destined to happen (wild fish stock decline).

So this passage is about the paradox—introducing and exploring it—instead of resolving the paradox. As such, we should make sure that we pick answers that reflect the uncertainty of the outcome, in the Author's opinion.

Last Thoughts:
Everything we said in the Meta-Structure section is true, but the Author here does spend more time on the downsides (Paragraphs 2 and 3, as opposed to half of Paragraph 4), introduces the paradox by stating that there's no evidence that fish farming will help with wild fish stock (Lines 13-14), and introduces something that will potentially counteract the positive effect of fish farming on the wild stock (Lines 55-57). So we should be willing to pick answers that, while reflecting uncertainty, are a little pessimistic towards how fish farming will affect wild fish stock populations.

Question prompt

The information in 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
    Any further decline in Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 16-18) The Author argued that we couldn't be sure whether fish farming would increase or decrease wild fish stock, and in talking about declines in these stocks as if it were going to happen, this answer doesn't reflect the passage.
  2. B
    The best way to Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    Incorrect. We would have noted if the passage used superlative language—""best way""—with respect to reducing the price of anything. Since we didn't make such a notation, we should be confident the passage doesn't back this answer up.
  3. C
    If fish farming does Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 5-9) The passage notes that fish farming will probably become an increasingly important source of protein for humans, but that falls short of saying that humans won't be able to meet their protein needs without it. We'd need to see language calling this source something like necessary to support this answer. That's another strong word that we would have noted if it were present in the passage!
  4. D
    Most consumers do not Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    Incorrect. There was no mention of taste or consumer thoughts on this, so this answer is out of scope.
  5. E
    The use of wild Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem
    Correct. Question Type:
    Must Be True

    Strategy Overview:
    Use our overall understanding of the passage to narrow down answers, and then use our notations and the passage to find the correct answer

    Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
    There's no guidance in the question stem as to the topic of the correct answer. So we'll need to do a quick check on each answer to determine whether we think it aligns with the information in the passage and, for those that do, use our notations and the passage to check to see if it's correct or not.

    Answer Explanation:
    (Paragraph 3) Paragraph 3 was all about farm fish requiring more kilograms of wild fish than they produce, so using wild fish to feed farmed fish could result in those wild fish being overfished. This answer is thus supported by the passage.

    Key Takeaway:
    Questions similar to this one don't give much guidance, so you'll need to rely on your notations to help analyze the answers. That said, the correct answer usually lines up with the overall argument of the passage, so focus on answers that align with the Author's main point.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion