PrepTest 155

[lcid:3718] Prep Test 155 LSAT — Reading Comp — S3 Reading comp

Passage

 With rapidly expanding populations, growing industrial development, and dwindling water supplies on national and regional levels, water is fast replacing Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary Topic:
Legal

Paragraph 1
  • Paragraph note
    • Problem (potential conflicts over water) and one attempted solution (ILC treaty structure)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Cause-and-effect relationships, according to the author:
      • Increasing populations, development, and water shortages have caused water to become the world's most valuable resource (first sentence)
      • The growing importance of water has caused the potential for conflicts over water resources like rivers (second sentence)
      • Nations' realization that they need to cooperate to protect rivers has caused the UN ILC to develop a treaty structure (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "rapidly" (first sentence); "dwindling" (first sentence); "fast replacing" (first sentence); "growing importance of water" (second sentence); "threats" (third sentence); "acutely aware" (third sentence); "need for international cooperation" (last sentence)
Paragraph 2
  • Paragraph note
    • Details of ILC Draft Articles (guidelines for treaty-formation based on customary principles and accepted law)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • List of principles ILC Draft Articles recommend for treates:
      • Use of river shouldn't harm another nation (last sentence)
      • Every nation's use should be equitable and reasonable (last sentence)
      • Nations should work to protect ecosystems (last sentence)
Paragraph 3
  • Paragraph note
    • Author's criticism of ILC (doesn't address changing water levels)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Author's view
      • The ILC Draft Articles are a step forward but "inadequate" because they don't address future environmental changes, like changing water levels (first through last sentences)
    • Cause-and-effect relationships, according to the author:
      • An increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide causes the greenhouse effect and warmer temperatures, which causes decreased participation and increased runoff from snow (second through last sentences)
    • Author's attitude: "significant step forward" (first sentence); "inadequate because they do not provide satisfactory ways of dealing with possible future environmental changes" (first sentence); "significant environmental threat" (second sentence); "likely to have a number of dramatic effects on water levels" (last sentence); "more importantly" (last sentence)
Paragraph 4
  • Paragraph note
    • More of the author's criticisms (allocating a fixed amount of water will be unfair as water levels change) and possible solution
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Author's view:
      • The Draft Articles recommend allocating fixed amounts of water, which doesn't address changes to water levels and will therefore favor countries with higher usage (first through third sentence)
      • This problem could be avoided if the Draft Articles were more flexible (fourth through last sentence)
    • Examples of ways to make the Draft Articles more flexible, according to the author:
      • Allocating water based on proportional usage or having plans for specific changes (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "will not be flexible enough" (first sentence); "would have no mechanism for coping" (second sentence); "unjustly favor" (third sentence); "circumvent this problem" (fourth sentence)


Main Point:
The UN ILC's proposed treaty structure is a step forward in addressing a current problem, but it's inadequate because it doesn't address what will happen to changes in water levels in the future.

Key Lines?
Paragraph 1, Sentence 4 (P1, S4) - Potential solution to a problem
P3, S1 - Summary of the author's opinion of the solution

Meta-Structure?
Problem/Solution: This passage best fits the Problem/Solution Meta-Structure*. The author describes a problem with the increasing risk of international conflict over water sources and one potential solution — the United Nations' ILC Draft Articles, which recommend guidelines in the formation of treaties regarding rivers and other watercourses that flow through more than one country. The author even layers another problem and solution on this general framework. The author describes a problem with the ILC solution and briefly discusses how to solve one of those problems. Still, it's easiest to understand this passage if we consider the growing risk of conflict as the passage's central problem and the ILC's Draft Articles as the passage's central solution.

In a Problem/Solution passage, the author's opinion of the proposed solution is the passage's main point. The author has a fairly critical opinion of ILC's Draft Articles, an opinion summarized in the first sentence of the third paragraph. We can use that sentence to help us with any question that requires us to consider the passage's main point.

*Some may argue that this is a Criticizing a Viewpoint or Correcting the Record passage — understandably so, since this author is fairly critical of the proposed solution. If you went with either of these, that's OK! You'd wind up with the same main point and big-picture understanding of the passage described above. Let's remember that the Meta-Structures are here to help us think about the overarching structure and ideas in a passage. We don't have to agree on which Meta-Structure a passage has to realize the benefits of the Meta-Structures.

Causality: The most prominent minor Meta-Structure in this passage is causality. The author describes several cause-and-effect relationships in the passage, and at least one of them is likely to factor into a question. To help us locate and review these relationships, we recommend highlighting the causal words, like "increased" (P1, S2), "led to" (P1, S4), "resulting" (P3, S3), "arising from" (P3, S3), and "due to" (P3, S3).

Last Thoughts?
It'll likely be important to note that although the author focuses on problems with the proposed Draft Articles, the author still says they're a "significant step forward" (P3, S1). So, the author is not entirely down on the Draft Articles. This concession might factor into a Tone question or two.

Question prompt

Which one of the Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: C

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

Question Type

Legal

Answer choices

  1. A
    The world's water resources Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    Does this answer choice include the same ideas as our anticipation?

    Nope. This answer fails to address the author's criticisms of the ILC's treaty guidelines, so it fails to bring up this central component of the author's opinion on the solution. We can cross this one off.
  2. B
    The potential for international Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    Does this answer choice include the same ideas as our anticipation?

    Again, no. Similar to (A), this answer completely misses the author's argument about the shortcomings of the ILC's treaty structure. We can again eliminate this option.
  3. C
    Though the ILC's Draft Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C matches the stem
    Question Type:
    Main Point/Main Point

    Strategy Overview:
    Reiterate the main point as we summarized it after reading through the passage, then find the answer that best matches it

    Answer Anticipation:
    As discussed in the Meta-Structure section above, this passage utilizes a Problem/Solution Meta-Structure. In such a Meta-Structure, the main point is generally the author's opinion on the solution. The author summarized this opinion in the first sentence of the third paragraph. So, the main point is: "The UN ILC's proposed treaty structure is a step forward in addressing a current problem, but it's inadequate because it doesn't address what will happen to changes in water levels in the future." Let's find an answer choice that includes these ideas.

    Answer Choice Explanation:
    Does this answer choice include the same ideas as our anticipation?

    Yes, it does! This answer brings up the proposed solution by the ILC — which the author does believe is significant in the short-term — and also pivots to the author's argument that it is "inadequate" because the solution fails to address foreseeable future changes. This answer choice perfectly reflects the author's overall opinion on the ILC Draft Articles, so it is the correct answer. We can justifiably select it and move on to the following question.

    Key Takeaway:
    For the Main Point question, we must find an answer that encapsulates the entirety of the author's viewpoint. Compare (C) with (D) and (E). These are similar answer choices, but (D) and (E) miss the author's concession that the ILC Draft Articles are at least a step in the right direction.
  4. D
    While the environmental threats Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    Does this answer choice include the same ideas as our anticipation?

    Not quite. Even if the author suggests minor changes to one provision of the Article in the last paragraph, the author's main point is that these Draft Articles are worthwhile but flawed. The author's main point isn't that we should make changes to the Articles.
  5. E
    The increase in atmospheric Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    Does this answer choice include the same ideas as our anticipation?

    Not exactly, although this is a very tempting answer! However, this answer choice omits the author's belief that the ILC proposal is "a significant step" in the right direction. Therefore, this answer is much more critical of the proposal than the author is, and we can eliminate it.

    Moreover, this answer choice suggests that atmospheric carbon and greenhouse gases have already affected river systems. That's not true, according to this passage. The author says that these threats are "possible future changes" (P3, S1). In other words, they haven't already occurred, as this answer choice implies.

What this tests

Discussion