PrepTest 108, Section 3, Question 6
Shortly after the power plant opened and began(23 more words not shown)
Each of the following, if(8 more words not shown)
- AThe discharged wastewater(14 more words not shown)
- BThe discharged water(15 more words not shown)
- CBecause of the(27 more words not shown)
- DBecause of the(22 more words not shown)
- EThe discharged wastewater(17 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
My first thought is that the wastewater might be harming the fish. The plant opens, water starts flowing into the river, and anglers downstream catch fewer bass. That timing makes a connection worth investigating.
It doesn't prove that the wastewater is killing bass, though. A disease or some other change could be responsible. We are given an observation—the number caught decreased—without a conclusion establishing its cause.
What we’re looking for
The question asks which answer cannot help explain the decrease. I'd initially expect explanations of how the discharge could harm the fish. But we should follow what each answer actually explains, rather than require every explanation to match that first guess.
Working the answers
- A
The wastewater attracts fish that prey on bass. More predators could mean fewer bass available to be caught downstream. The water need not poison the bass directly; it could reduce their numbers by bringing in animals that eat them. That helps explain the decrease, so A is not the exception.
- B
The bass leave the warmer water for cooler water elsewhere. They don't have to die for anglers in this particular stretch of river to catch fewer of them. If the bass move away, the local catch can decline. B supplies a direct explanation of that change.
- CCorrect
More anglers are now fishing for bass. By itself, that would give us more people trying to catch fish, not an explanation of why the total catch fell.
It is tempting to add an overfishing story: perhaps the extra anglers eventually depleted the population. But C doesn't tell us that the added fishing depleted anything. That requires an additional step beyond the information given. The immediate change is an increase in fishing opportunities, which makes a lower total catch more puzzling rather than explaining it.
- D
This explains the result through the people fishing, rather than through harm to the bass. The noise makes the area less popular, so fewer anglers may fish there.
Imagine 100 anglers each catching one bass, compared with five anglers each catching one. The total falls from 100 to five even though each angler has the same success. We do not need a decline in the fish population for a decline in the overall number caught. That distinction gives D its explanatory force.
- E
Destroying vegetation removes part of the bass's habitat. That could make the area harder for bass to live in or cause them to move elsewhere. Either result could leave fewer available to anglers downstream. This is another way the discharge could help explain the lower catch.
More Paradox questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Paradox questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.