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
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.
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)
- Cause-and-effect relationships, according to the author:
- 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)
- List of principles ILC Draft Articles recommend for treates:
- 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)
- Author's view
- 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)
- Author's view:
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
The passage most strongly
Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right
Credited answer: A
The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.
Question Type
Legal
Answer choices
-
AIt is possible to Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A matches the stem
Question Type:
Tone/Author Agree
Strategy Overview:
Review the main point, and use notes or highlighted/underlined text in the passage to recall the author's attitude, and find the answer that best reflects your understanding of the main point/author's attitude
Answer Anticipation:
This question asks us about the author's view but doesn't provide any insight into the topic of the correct answer or where the supporting information might show up in the passage. This means the correct answer is likely to relate back to the author's main point. As such, we'll need to rely on our big-picture understanding of the passage to answer this question. We should start by reminding ourselves of the main point (either by reviewing what we said after reading the passage or by rereading our answer to the main point question). We can also review any notes about the author's attitude or any text we highlighted because it expressed the author's opinion. After doing that, we can head to the answer choices, tabling those that don't line up with the main point. For those answer choices that conform to the author's main point, we'll use our notes and the passage to see if it's correct.
Answer Choice Explanation:
Does this relate to the author's main point or what you recall about the author's opinions?
Yeah, this relates to the author's concession in the main point. The author agrees that the Articles are a step in the right direction. We also noted that the author proposes a solution to one of the Articles' problems related to changes in river flows in the fourth paragraph. So, the idea that we can uphold the broad precepts in the Articles while still allowing countries to adapt to changes in river flows is consistent with the author's opinions in this passage. Therefore, checking the passage to see if this is supported is worthwhile.
Upon review of the fourth paragraph, we'll see that the author says that problems related to changing river flows can be "circumvent[ed]" (P4, S4). The author says that allocating water based on percentages rather than fixed amounts or building in contingency plans for certain changes can allow more equitable water usage (P4, S4-5). This would uphold the broad precepts of the Draft Articles, particularly the second — that every nation's use should be equitable and reasonable (P2, S3). So, the author would almost certainly agree with this statement. We can select (A) and even advance straight to the following question.
Key Takeaway:
When the Author's viewpoint is more nuanced than, "X is good" or "Y is bad," answers tend to highlight that nuance. Here, while the author presented an issue with the Draft Articles, the author also noted that they were a significant step forward. This is already the second question of this set to address this nuance. -
BEfforts to manage and Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
Does this relate to the author's main point or what you recall about the author's opinions?
No. The author's main point isn't that the ILC should have "unilateral regulatory action" over treaties. Experienced test-takers would also note that this is a very bold recommendation — one they'd likely have remembered or tagged if it appeared in the passage. Therefore, we can eliminate (B) without checking the passage.
Besides, if we reviewed the entire passage, we wouldn't find any claims and implications that the ILC should have such power. Indeed, the author never questions that the ILC should merely be "guidelines" for treaty formation (P2, S2). -
CThe Draft Articles need Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
Does this relate to the author's main point or what you recall about the author's opinions?
No. Therefore, experienced test-takers would at least table this answer choice and check the remaining (assuming they hadn't already selected the correct one).
If we did check the passage, we'd recall that author criticizes the Draft Articles because they fail to address changes to water flow in the future (P3, S1; P4, S1), not their failure to deal with water systems as a whole. The author does end the passage by discussing river systems that are shared, but the author doesn't say the Articles fail to take into account the effects of water usage on a whole river system. The author's criticism only addresses how water will be apportioned between the countries in a future where the water flow changes. -
DMany existing treaties governing Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
Does this relate to the author's main point or what you recall about the author's opinions?
Nope. As a result, expert test-takers would at least table this answer choice and check the remaining (if they hadn't already chosen the correct one and moved on).
If we did review the passage, we'd confirm that the author would probably disagree with this statement. The author says the Draft Articles' recommended treaties aren't flexible treaties, and the Articles' recommendations are based on existing treaties. So, the author would disagree with the notion that current treaties are flexible. -
ECountries that use the Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
Does this relate to the author's main point or what you recall about the author's opinions?
Not quite. So we can table this answer choice and review any that we hadn't already eliminated.
If we reviewed the passage, we could confirm that this answer choice is incorrect. Although the author says that treaties based on fixed allocations benefit counties that already use the most water (P4, S3), the author never says these countries favor such treaties. In fact, we couldn't find any discussion of what those countries have favored, so this answer is unsupported.
What this tests
Discussion
No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.