PrepTest 118, Section 4, Question 11
Between 1976 and 1985, chemical wastes were dumped(70 more words not shown)
The answer to each of(12 more words not shown)
- AWhat is the(20 more words not shown)
- BWhat was the(15 more words not shown)
- CHas the consumption(21 more words not shown)
- DAre bluefin cod(25 more words not shown)
- EAre there gene-altering(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Three percent have deformed fins. What was the percentage before the dumping?
We aren't told that deformities increased. If the rate was already 3 percent, simply pointing to today's fish wouldn't show that the dumped chemicals created the problem. Nor does knowing that the chemicals can cause genetic mutations establish that they caused these particular deformities.
The fishing industry's financial concern is understandable: customers have stopped buying the fish. But the claim we need to evaluate is the explanation for the deformities. Were these chemicals responsible, or could something else account for them?
What we’re looking for
This is an EXCEPT question. Four questions will help us investigate that causal claim; the answer we choose will concern something else. Comparisons with unexposed fish, evidence about the earlier rate, and possible other causes could all matter. Keep asking whether the information would help determine what caused the fins to develop this way.
Working the answers
- A
This would help. If comparable bluefin cod have the same deformity rate without exposure to these chemicals, the bay's rate looks less distinctive. If unexposed fish rarely have the deformity, that would give us more reason to investigate exposure as a cause. The comparison bears directly on the representatives' explanation.
- B
This is the question we raised while reading. A rate that stayed the same after dumping would give a different picture from a rate that rose sharply after dumping. We wouldn't settle causation from timing alone, but we would learn something relevant about whether the proposed cause changed the outcome.
- CCorrect
Whether eating the fish harms people doesn't tell us what caused the fins to be deformed. The chemicals could cause the deformity without making the fish dangerous to eat, or the fish could pose a health risk for some other reason.
The customers' reaction matters to the industry's lost sales, but the question being evaluated is the representatives' causal claim about the fish. Human health effects don't establish that link.
- D
A naturally occurring disease could offer another explanation for the same deformity. Learning whether these fish are prone to such a disease would help us assess whether the dumped chemicals deserve the blame. This is relevant even though merely identifying a possible disease wouldn't prove it caused the problem.
- E
Other gene-altering pollutants could be responsible instead of, or in addition to, the chemicals these companies dumped. We need to distinguish those possibilities before attributing the deformities to the particular waste in question. E therefore would help evaluate the claim.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.