PrepTest 115

[lcid:3556] Prep Test 115 LSAT — Reading Comp — S1 Reading comp

Passage

Questions 1-5  .        By the year 2030, the Earth's population is  . expected to increase to 10 billion; ideally, Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Science


Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • Problem introduced (resource shortage and excess waste with population growth)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • List of problems, according to the author:
      • Copper, nickel, petroleum will last a decade at current consumption (second sentence)
      • Enough waste each year to bury large cities 100 m deep (gross) (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "ideally" (first sentence); "would last a decade or less" (second sentence); "suggest" (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • Author's solution (Industrial ecosystem, which minimizes and recycles waste)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Author's view:
      • The problem should motivate us to switch to an alternative model for industry, called the "industrial ecosystem" (second and third sentences)
    • Definition of "industrial ecosystem": A system where consumption is optimized and waste is minimized and used as the raw material for other processes (last sentence)
    • Comparison, according to the author:
      • Distinction drawn between the "traditional model of industrial activity" and the "industrial ecosystem," which is more "integrated" (third sentence)
    • Examples of waste that is utilized for other processes in the "industrial ecosystem," according to the author:
      • Spent catalysts from petroleum refining and discarded plastic from consumer products (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "not meant to predict a grim future" (first sentence); "emphasize the incentives" (second sentence); "suggest" (third sentence); "should be transformed into a more integrated model" (third sentence)

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Support for solution (How an industrial ecosystem generates less waste)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Comparisons, according to the author:
      • Materials in an industrial ecosystem will be depleted at the same rate as materials in a biological ecosystem (first sentence)
      • An industrial ecosystem will inevitably consume energy and create waste/harmful by-products, but at a much lower rate than what is typical today (last sentence)
    • Examples of ways industrial ecosystems will reuse materials
      • Lifecycle of a "chunk of steel" (second sentence)
      • "Designed offal" in metal and plastic manufacturers (third sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "ideal" (first sentence); "still requires" (last sentence); "unavoidable generation of some wastes and some wastes and harmful by-products, but at much lower levels than are typical today" (last sentence)

Paragraph 4

  • Paragraph note
    • Author's conclusion (industrial ecosystem is possible if countries embrace changes)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Author's conclusion:
      • The ideal industrial ecosystem may not be attainable in the near future, but countries embracing major changes in the face of dwindling resources and increasing waste should make it possible to develop a more sustainable industrial ecosystem. (first and last sentences)
    • Author's attitude: "ideal" (first sentence); "economically viable role for every product of a manufacturing process" (first sentence); "will not be attained soon" (first sentence); "often inadequate" (first sentence); "should be possible to develop" (last sentence); "decreasing supplies of raw materials" (last sentence); "increasing problems of waste and pollution" (last sentence)

Main Point: The urgent problem of resource depletion and excessive waste should lead industrialized and developing nations to embrace the principles of the "industrial ecosystem," in which consumption is optimized, waste is minimized, and refuge serves as the raw material for other processes.

Meta-Structure?

Problem/Solution - This passage is a quintessential version of Problem/Solution Meta-Structure*, a common structuring device for science passages. The problem — that the resource consumption and waste production of industrialized nations will bury us alive alarming soon — is defined in the first paragraph. The solution is outlined in the remaining paragraphs.

In this Meta-Structure, the main point is the author's proposed solution (or the author's opinions one the proposed solution proffered by others). The author proposes the solution in the second paragraph: Let's switch things up from the traditional industrial activity (by the way, problems with a "traditional" practice often show up in these Meta-Structures), to a leaner, greener, new model of the "industrial ecosystem." When that model is initially defined in the second paragraph, it sort of just sounds like recycling, and doesn't exactly sound like groundbreaking or world-saving stuff. But when the author supports how an "industrial ecosystem" will conserve resources and reduce waste in the third paragraph, we get a better idea of how it works: in an industrial ecosystem, materials are conserved and reused as efficiently and completely as in a biological ecosystem. The author then makes the final push for this system in the passage's concluding sentence.

In this Problem/Solution Meta-Structure, we should also note if the author acknowledges any limitations to the proposed solutions. This author does, twice: (1) there will also be some energy expenditure and waste in the use of "designed offal", and (2) we don't currently have the technology to realize the "ideal" industrial ecosystem.

*Still, you could also credibly claim this is an Old Approach/New Approach passage, with the "industrial ecosystem" standing in for the new approach. Remember, there's often more than one Meta-Structure that will fit a passage's argument.

Last Thoughts?

This is one in which you could easily get bogged down in the details. They could conceivably ask us about any number of the odd details brought up here, from the types of natural resources we're depleting to the ways "effluents" could be reused to the intricacies of "designed offal." But, unlike large cities and suburbs ten years from now, don't let these details bury you 100 meters deep. Just remember where in the passage the problem is located (the first paragraph), where the solution is outlined (the second paragraph and third paragraphs), and where the author qualifies the solution (the end of the third paragraph and beginning of the fourth paragraph).

Question prompt

The author of the Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: D

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

Question Type

Science

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

There are two ways you could approach this question. On the one hand, you could go directly back to the first paragraph of the passage, where the author discusses "standards of living" (P1, S1). You could realize then that the author wants us all to enjoy the perks of living in a present-day industrial democracy. If you stopped there and looked for that sentiment in the answer choices, you wouldn't find it in any choice, so you could go back to the passage. Maybe you'd note that ominous little "however" in the first sentence, and then read further to recall the petroleum-depleting and city-burying consequences of such perks (P1, S1-S2). You could then note that the solution posed in the rest of the passage is an attempt to fix this problem — that the industrial ecosystem discussed in paragraphs two through four can help mitigate these consequences while allowing us all to enjoy high standards of living.That approach is sound, but it requires you to re-read and review a lot of the passage. You could conceivably start at the first line and keep going until you hit the end of the passage. That's an inefficient use of your limited time, so it's not the approach we recommend. Instead, since this is a question about the author's opinions, you should recall the author's main point (that we should strive to implement the industrial ecosystem to conserve resources and limit waste), as well as the corollary points the author makes (that there will still be waste when using "designed offal" and current technology limits our ability to realize the ideal industrial ecosystem), and look for the answer choice that is aligned with those views.As we assess the answer choices, we can table 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 confirm that it's correct.

Answer choices

  1. A
    An increase in the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Does this conform to the author's main point?

    Nope. So we can eliminate — or at least table — (A) without reviewing the passage.

    In fact, several answer choices can be eliminated because they claim the author predicts that standards of living will decrease in industrialized or developing countries. The author never makes such a prediction in this passage. In fact, the author wants us all to enjoy the perks of living in a present-day industrial democracy (P1, S1), and thinks creating industrial ecosystems will help us do so. So we cannot conclude, as (A) states, that the author thinks increasing the standards of living in developing countries will necessarily be accompanied by a decrease in standards for industrialized countries.

  2. B
    It is likely that Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Does this conform to the author's main point?

    No. So we can eliminate — or at least table — (B) without reviewing the passage.

    Like (A), this answer choice claims the author believes that standards of living will decrease, a prediction that the author never makes. In fact, the author suggests the "industrial ecosystem" solution will help us reach the "ideal" outcome in which we all enjoy the perks of living experienced by present-day industrial democracies (P1, S1).

  3. C
    The current standard of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Does this conform to the author's main point?

    No. So we can eliminate — or at least table — (C) without reviewing the passage.

    Still, (C) is a tempting answer choice … if you focus too much on the first paragraph, and don't consider the author's main point. The first paragraph suggests there might be major consequences to the current standard of living in industrialized countries (P1, S2-S3). However, the rest of the passage is a solution to this potential problem: if we implement the principles of the industrial ecosystem, we can limit the harm wrought by the current standard of living in industrialized countries, and both developing and industrialized countries can continue to enjoy those standards, even as the population increases.

    If you selected this answer choice, we recommend that you make a note to always reflect on the author's main point before answering a question about the author's opinions and to try to avoid selecting answer choices that conflict with the author's main point on future Author Agree questions.

  4. D
    All countries could enjoy Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D matches the stem

    (D) Does this conform to the author's main point?

    Yes! This answer is essentially a restatement of the author's main point in this passage. For passages with the Problem/Solution Meta-structure, the author's solution to the problem will be the main point. The problem is that the high standard of living in industrialized democracies will deplete resources and create enormous amounts of waste. The solution — i.e., the main point — is that implementing the industrial ecosystem could help us avoid those catastrophic problems associated with the standard of living in industrialized democracies. This answer choice more or less restates the author's main point, so it's definitely something that the author would agree with.

    Notice how this answer choice is also modified with soft language ("could enjoy”), making it easier to support, and thus more likely to be correct on a question in which we are asked to infer the author's opinion.

    All of these reasons justify a decision to select (D) and advance straight to the next question.

  5. E
    Supplies of critical natural Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Does this conform to the author's main point?

    Nope. So we can eliminate — or at least table — (E) without reviewing the passage.

    But, like (C), this answer choice may be enticing if you didn't consider the author's main point when answering this question. The first paragraph certainly suggests the supplies of natural resources are in danger (P1, S2). The solution the author agrees with is implementing the industrial ecosystem in industrialized and developing countries, which will help conserve the natural resources used. So, we cannot conclude that the author would agree with this answer choice, which asserts that the only solution to the resource-depletion problem is decreasing the standards of living.

    If you selected this answer choice, we recommend that you make a note to always reflect on the author's main point before answering a question about the author's attitude, and to try to avoid selecting answer choices that conflict with the author's main point on future Author's Attitude questions.

What this tests

Discussion

  • Why E? 1 reply

    Started by CheVaughn

  • Question Type 1 reply

    Started by the66guy

  • Why D instead of C? 3 replies

    Started by Vennela-Vellanki

View all discussions Start a discussion