PrepTest 109

[lcid:3533] Prep Test 109 LSAT — Reading Comp — S2 Reading comp

Passage

Questions 15-22  .        Experts anticipate that global atmospheric  . concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) will have  . Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Science


Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • Some researchers' argument (more CO2 in the atmosphere will increase vegetation and slow global warming)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Experts' view:
      • The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will double by the end of the century (first sentence)
    • Cause-and-effect relationship, according to experts:
      • CO2 can cause global warming by trapping solar energy (second sentence)
    • Some researchers' view:
      • More CO2 will cause a chain reaction that actually fights the effects of global warming (third sentence)
    • Cause-and-effect relationship, according to some researchers:
      • More CO2 will cause more plants, which will cause more absorption of CO2, which will cause a lower increase of CO2 than predicted (third through last sentences)
    • Author's attitude: "is known" (second sentence)

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • Studies show more CO2 won't increase vegetation (more CO2 reduces crops, reduces stability, and increases fires)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Cause-and-effect relationships, according to studies:
      • More CO2 would cause some plants to outcompete others, which could cause a reduction in some important crops like corn and sugar cane (first and second sentences)
      • More CO2 could also cause an increase in certain weeds, which could cause ecosystem instability or more severe wildfires (third through last sentences)
    • Author's attitude: "However" (first sentence), "important crops" (second sentence), "may lead to" (last sentence), "more severe" (last sentence)

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Billings' study shows more CO2 won't slow global warming (more plants won't offset increased decomposition)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Cause-and-effect relationship, according to Billings:
      • In wet tundra grasslands, increased temperatures will cause more CO2, which will cause increased plant growth, which causes more peat (dead plant material) to decompose, which causes a significant increase in CO2 that the increased plant growth can't offset (third through eighth sentences)
    • Author's view:
      • Billings' study is important because the tundra will experience the greatest temperature increase from global warming (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "It is clear" (first sentence), "does not guarantee" (first sentence) "particularly important" (last sentence)

Main Point: Studies suggest elevated CO2 levels will not guarantee lush agriculture or reduce global warming.

Meta-Structure?

Correcting the Record: This passage utilizes a Correcting the Record Meta-Structure.* In a Correcting the Record passage, the author will describe a common misconception or false belief. Often, this belief is based on a lack of information. The author then explains why the beliefs are false.

That's precisely how this passage progresses. The author introduces the belief that expected increases of CO2 in the atmosphere could make the world agriculturally lush and even decrease the rate of global warming. The author then corrects both of those points with new studies. According to these studies, increased CO2 will not make the world agriculturally lush (because some plants will increase more than others, reducing ecological stability and increasing the prevalence of wildfires) or slow global warming (because it will increase decomposition and release even more CO2).

In passages that use a Correcting the Record Meta-Structure, the main point will generally summarize the author's explanation of why the misconception is false or just an assertion that the misconceptions are false. We kept it simple with our summary: "Studies suggest elevated CO2 levels will not guarantee lush agriculture or reduce global warming."

Cause and effect: The most prominent minor Meta-Structure is cause and effect. This isn't surprising, as this minor Meta-Structure is prevalent in science passages. Each paragraph asserts a cause-and-effect relationship. Having these noted or highlighted will help you answer the inevitable questions about these relationships.

Last Thoughts?

There's no way around it: this is a dense, science-y passage. It's made a lot more tolerable, however, by realizing that the passage's arguments are causal arguments. The author and all the researchers mentioned — they are all making arguments about certain causes leading to certain effects. The hypothesis in the first sentence says that more CO2 will cause a decrease in the rate of global warming. The author says that CO2 will really just cause agricultural issues and the release of even more CO2. If you can, try committing these relationships to memory! It'll save you a lot of time and headaches as you answer the questions!

Question prompt

The passage suggests that Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: B

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

Question Type

Science

Strategy Overview

Refer to notes or what you highlighted/underlined to locate where the passage discusses the problems with the hypothesis in the first paragraph, and refer to the relevant part of the passage as needed to find that answer choice that must be true

Answer Anticipation

For questions that ask us to find a specific detail mentioned in the passage, quickly finding and reviewing that piece of information is paramount. That is why we make brief notes describing the role of each paragraph and highlight or underline definitions and the minor Meta-Structures — doing so helps us find the salient information efficiently and reliably. Once we review that part of the passage, we can look through the answer choices to see which one is best supported by what we reviewed.In this case, the question stem asks us to identify what the hypothesis in the first paragraph has overlooked in its prediction about the effect of increased plant growth on the rate of global warming. First of all, we should clarify for ourselves what this hypothesis says. According to our note for the first paragraph, this view is that "more CO2 in the atmosphere will increase vegetation and slow global warming."Now, where does the passage discuss the problems with global warming prediction? Our note for the third paragraph — "Billings' study shows more CO2 won't slow global warming (more plants won't offset increased decomposition)" — points us there. The parenthetical might provide enough information to answer this question. However, if you'd like to be even more prepared, you can review the third paragraph.There, we'll be reminded that Billings shows increased temperatures in the tundra would cause more peat to decompose and how "increased plant growth … would not compensate for this rapid increase in decomposition rates'' (P3, S8). From this information, we can anticipate what the correct answer will say. We're looking for something like, "the hypothesis from the first paragraph overlooks the fact that increasing temperatures could cause decomposing plant material to release even more CO2."

Answer choices

  1. A
    Increased levels of CO Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Does this say that the hypothesis from the first paragraph overlooks the fact that increasing temperatures could cause decomposing plant material to release even more CO2?

    Nope. We can cross this off as soon as we see it's not a match for our anticipation.

    Besides, this is a fact that the hypothesis relies on (P1, S3). While the author acknowledges that this is true, albeit not as straightforwardly beneficial as the researchers in the first paragraph think (P1, S1). Since this question stem asks explicitly about the hypothesis' prediction about global warming, this answer choice points us to the wrong part of the passage.

  2. B
    Increased plant growth cannot Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B matches the stem

    (B) Does this say that the hypothesis from the first paragraph overlooks the fact that increasing temperatures could cause decomposing plant material to release even more CO2?

    Yes! This is exactly what we anticipated. The hypothesis is inaccurate because, as the third paragraph says, it overlooks how rising temperatures will cause peat to release more CO2 than the plants can keep up with (P3, S8). (B) is our answer. We can select it and advance to the following question.

  3. C
    Low–latitude habitats will experience Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Does this say that the hypothesis from the first paragraph overlooks the fact that increasing temperatures could cause decomposing plant material to release even more CO2?

    Nope. Not only does this not match our anticipation, it's directly contradicted by the passage. It's habitats in high latitudes that will have the greatest temperature increase (P3, S9). (C) is out.

  4. D
    Increased levels of CO Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Does this say that the hypothesis from the first paragraph overlooks the fact that increasing temperatures could cause decomposing plant material to release even more CO2?

    No. We can cross this off once we see it doesn't match our anticipation.

    Besides, this isn't supported by the passage. The melting permafrost causes the decomposition of peat (P3, S5), but we never read anything about the "distribution of peat" or how it's related to "patterns of plant growth." (D) is out.

  5. E
    Increases in vegetation can Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Does this say that the hypothesis from the first paragraph overlooks the fact that increasing temperatures could cause decomposing plant material to release even more CO2?

    Negative. We can eliminate (E) once we notice it doesn't match our anticipation.

    Besides, like (A), the researchers rely on this fact. They argue that more CO2 will increase vegetation, which will absorb more CO2. So, this is not a fact they overlook.

What this tests

Discussion

  • combinations 4 replies

    Started by allisonfarley

  • Setup 7 replies

    Started by sadaabrahman

  • Setting Game up 1 reply

    Started by tomgbean