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: D

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

Question Type

Science

Answer choices

  1. A
    Wild fish require different Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    Incorrect. (Paragraph 3) Fish diets are discussed in Paragraph 3. There, it's stated that farmed fish require fish meal and fish oil that is provided by wild fish. Wild carnivores also eat wild fish. So, if anything, the passage suggests that the two types of fish require the same types of nutrients.
  2. B
    It is more profitable Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 39-43) The passage suggests that these three fish require ""less fish input"" than is eventually harvested, while salmon requires more. So there's one cost that appears to be higher for the three fish here than salmon. However, since there are other costs, and the passage doesn't discuss the sale price for these fish, we can't draw any inferences about profitability.
  3. C
    The farming of tilapia Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 50-55; Paragraph 2) The passage notes that farming these fish is similar to farming fish like salmon in that it can reduce demand for certain ocean fish, but that section of the passage doesn't refer to the environmental damage. And checking out the section on environmental damage in Paragraph 2, there's no mention of these specific fish.
  4. D
    A growing number of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D matches the stem
    Correct. Question Type:
    Must Be True

    Strategy Overview:
    Use our overall understanding of the passage to narrow answer choices down and then use the passage to confirm or rule out the ones that align with the passage

    Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
    There's not much to go off of in the question stem, so let's dig into the answers that line up with the overall point of the passage

    Answer Explanation:
    (Lines 55-59) The passage ends by discussing the recent development of niche markets for certain wild-caught fish even as ""fiable farmed substitutes"" have become available. As such, the passage implies there is a growing number of consumers who are opting for the wild fish over the farmed ones, supporting this answer.

    Key Takeaway:
    Note all the comparative language in these answer choices! That makes sense, as the passage did compare alternative methods of fishing.
  5. E
    Noncarnivorous fish in the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    Incorrect. (Paragraph 3) The passage discusses the diets of fish in Paragraph 3, but it doesn't mention wild noncarnivorous fish—it compares farmed fish and wild carnivorous fish.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion