PrepTest 132, Section 4, Question 1
Marine biologist: Scientists have long wondered why the(68 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(12 more words not shown)
- AOne hypothesis about(20 more words not shown)
- BThe fact that(21 more words not shown)
- CThe suggestion that(18 more words not shown)
- DA reef stripped(6 more words not shown)
- EIt turns out(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Bright fish blending into a bright reef sounds plausible. If predators have trouble seeing you, that could help you survive. But is the reef itself actually bright?
The biologist says no. Take away the fish and the reef is mostly dull browns and greens. The fish supply the brilliant colors we were trying to explain. So pointing to a colorful reef doesn't establish that the fish are matching colorful coral. That's the explanation the biologist rejects.
Could camouflage still play some other role? Maybe the colorful fish blend in with one another. That possibility keeps us from turning the biologist's point into a claim that camouflage has nothing to do with their colors. The specific claim here concerns blending into the reef.
What we’re looking for
For the main conclusion, find the judgment the evidence supports: the proposed explanation is mistaken. The dull coral is the reason for that judgment. We don't have to settle the true explanation for the fish's colors to identify what the biologist is arguing.
Working the answers
- A
This is the suggestion the biologist considers and then rejects. It tells us what the argument is about, but leaves out the author's judgment. The main point is that this explanation is mistaken.
- B
This gives a reason someone might initially find the camouflage theory plausible. Other animals use camouflage, so perhaps these fish do too. But the biologist goes on to challenge the explanation in this particular setting. B stops before that challenge.
- CCorrect
The fish's brilliant colors are not explained by camouflage against the reef, according to the biologist. Why not? The coral is relatively dull. C gives the claim that this observation is meant to support.
- D
This is evidence for the conclusion. If the reef without its fish is relatively uniform in color, that undermines the idea that the fish are matching a brilliantly colored background. The observation helps establish that the explanation is mistaken; it isn't the final judgment itself.
- E
The browns and greens explain why the reef isn't the colorful background the proposed explanation assumes. Like D, this supplies support for rejecting the theory. It doesn't state the rejection.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.