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 author would be 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

Science

Strategy Overview

Consult your notes or passage to recall the author's attitude about the topic in question, and find the answer that best reflects your understanding of the author's opinion on that topic

Answer Anticipation

This question asks us to find the answer choice about the hypothesis in the first paragraph that the author would most likely agree with. We can review our notes and what we highlighted/underlined to determine where the discussion of this topic takes place. Once we locate the relevant parts of the passage, we can review those to anticipate what the correct answer might say.Looking at our notes, we'll notice the author mentions rebuts these conclusions in the second and third paragraphs. Our note for the second paragraph says the author argues that "more CO2 reduces crops, reduces stability, and increases fires" and thus won't "won't increase vegetation." The third paragraph's note says that "more plants won't offset increased decomposition," so more CO2 "won't slow global warming." This is enough information to evaluate the answer choices — and, besides, we shouldn't re-read two big paragraphs to answer just one question — so let's head to the answer choices with this information in hand.

Answer choices

  1. A
    The conclusions are correct Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem

    (A) Is this consistent with the author's belief that more CO2 reduces crops, reduces stability, and increases fires and thus won't increase vegetation, or the belief that more plants created through increased CO2 levels won't offset increased decomposition or slow global warming?

    Yes! This is consistent with the belief that increased CO2 levels will lead to more plants! Plus, this answer choice has some soft, easy-to-support language ("certain") we like to see in the answer choices to Author Agree questions.

    If necessary, you can review the passage to find the text that proves that the author agrees with this claim. At the beginning of the second paragraph, the author says, "[A] number of recent studies confirm that plant growth would be generally enhanced in an atmosphere rich in CO2" (P2, S1). This implies that the author agrees with these studies' prediction that more CO2 will increase the photosynthetic rates of certain plants (P1, S3). Moreover, the author cites Patterson and Flint's research, which shows that "important crops may experience yield reductions because of the increased performance of certain weeds" (P2, S3). So, we can be certain the author agrees with (A). We can select it and move on to the following question.

  2. B
    The conclusions are correct Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Is this consistent with the author's belief that more CO2 reduces crops, reduces stability, and increases fires and thus won't increase vegetation, or the belief that more plants created through increased CO2 levels won't offset increased decomposition or slow global warming?

    Not quite. Although the author thinks increased CO2 levels will increase the number of plants, the author also argues that these levels will "reduce crops." Moreover, this answer choice uses strong, hard-to-support language ("guarantee abundances"). For these reasons, we can eliminate — or at least table — (B) and move on to the next answer choice.

    If we had to review the passage to eliminate (B), we'd see that the author thinks more CO2 could "result in decreased agricultural yields" (P2, S1). We don't know if there are other types of crops not mentioned in the passage that the author thinks might be helped, so (B) is out. 

  3. C
    The conclusions are correct Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Is this consistent with the author's belief that more CO2 reduces crops, reduces stability, and increases fires and thus won't increase vegetation, or the belief that more plants created through increased CO2 levels won't offset increased decomposition or slow global warming?

    Nope. We never read about reversing global warming, just slowing it down. Plus, our author doesn't think that increased plant growth will help that much anyway. (C) is out.

  4. D
    The conclusions are incorrect Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Is this consistent with the author's belief that more CO2 reduces crops, reduces stability, and increases fires and thus won't increase vegetation, or the belief that more plants created through increased CO2 levels won't offset increased decomposition or slow global warming?

    Not quite, but this is very tempting! However, the author thinks there won't be an overall increase in vegetation. According to Patterson and Flint (whom the author seems to agree with), CO2 will at least cause an abundance of weeds (P2, S2)! So, the author would say the conclusions are correct that enhanced plant growth could lead to abundances of certain species of plants — weeds, for one.

  5. E
    The conclusions are incorrect Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Is this consistent with the author's belief that more CO2 reduces crops, reduces stability, and increases fires and thus won't increase vegetation, or the belief that more plants created through increased CO2 levels won't offset increased decomposition or slow global warming?

    Not quite. The author never takes issue with the notion that vegetation draws CO2 from the atmosphere. The author just thinks an increase in vegetation won't absorb enough CO2 to offset the increased CO2 coming from decomposition. So, (E) is out.

What this tests

Discussion

  • How did you know 2 replies

    Started by Jessica-Killeen

  • Help 2 replies

    Started by Batman

View all discussions Start a discussion