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
Which one of 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
Legal
Answer choices
-
Amistrust of the political Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
Does this align with the author's main point or what you recall about the author's opinions?
Nope. Part of the author's main point is that the Draft Articles are a step in the right direction. That suggests the author doesn't mistrust the motives behind them — it might even suggest the opposite. Therefore, we can eliminate this without checking the passage.
If we had to check the passage, the closest the author gets to criticizing the motive behind the Articles is stating that the failure to address future changes benefits countries that currently use a lot of water (P4, S3). Still, that's more a criticism of the Articles' possible effects, not the motive behind them. -
Bskepticism regarding their assumption Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
Does this align with the author's main point or what you recall about the author's opinions?
No. Even if the Draft Articles operate under the assumption that treaties are the only way to form agreements about water usage, the author's main point isn't that we should try to regulate international watercourses with means other than treaties. In fact, the author says the Draft Articles — which help countries form treaties — are a step in the right direction. If the author was skeptical of treaties, the author probably wouldn't have offered even that light support. We can cross this answer choice off. -
Cconcern over their failure Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
Does this align with the author's main point or what you recall about the author's opinions?
Not quite. "[C]oncern" is a valid start to an answer here. But the author's main point reflects concern over the Draft Articles' ability to be flexible as water flow changes, not a failure to be able to resolve treaty violations. Therefore, we can eliminate (C) without checking the passage.
If we had to check the passage, we'd see that the author suggests that a court system could adjudicate treaty violations (P2, S1). -
Dsatisfaction with their initiative Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
Does this align with the author's main point or what you recall about the author's opinions?
Nope. "[S]atisfaction" is not quite right, as that suggests the author doesn't think we need to make improvements to the Draft Articles. That's an integral part of the author's main point, so we can eliminate (D) without checking the passage.
If we needed to check the passage, we'd see that the author also states that the Articles "attempt to codify" existing practices in international water law, which contradicts this answer choice. -
Eapproval of the general Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E matches the stem
Question Type:
Tone/Author's Attitude
Strategy Overview:
Review the main point and notes, if necessary, and base the answer on your understanding of the author's opinion
Answer Anticipation:
For Author's Attitude questions, the answer choices tend to fall into one of two categories: two-word answer choices or opinion + detail answer choices. The former generally capture only the direction (positive/negative/neutral) and strength of the author's opinion. The latter generally capture the direction and strength in one word, then fills in some details in the passage. This one falls into the latter camp.
In this case, the question asks about the author's attitude on the Draft Articles. That's a very broad topic in this passage. Now, we could go back to the passage to review all of the author's stated opinions. However, this approach would require us to re-read and review a lot of the passage. That's an inefficient use of our limited time, so it's not the approach we recommend. Instead, we'll recall the author's main point, as well as the corollary points the author makes. Then, let's work our way through the answer choices, tabling any that don't align with the author's views and examining any answer choice that conforms to those views.
Answer Choice Explanation:
Does this align with the author's main point or what you recall about the author's opinions?
Yes! This answer doesn't present a complete view of the author's attitude towards the Articles, but it does present an accurate view. The author approves of the goal of addressing water disputes as the resource gets scarcer and praises the Articles as a step in the right direction (P2, S1). The author may not love some of the specific recommendations and their failure to address foreseeable changes to water flow. However, the author still approves the goal of the Draft Articles. As such, this answer does reflect the author's attitude towards the Articles and is thus correct.
Key Takeaway:
For those counting at home, this is the third question of this set that could be answered simply by remembering that the author praised the Draft Articles as a step in the right direction. Noting these concessions is incredibly helpful on Reading Comp!
What this tests
Discussion
-
Authors opinion 2 replies
Started by Nativeguy