PrepTest 153, Section 1, Question 11
A recent worldwide decline of ocean fishery stocks(470 more words not shown)
The views put forward in(18 more words not shown)
- AThey should be(19 more words not shown)
- BThey should be(23 more words not shown)
- CThey should not(17 more words not shown)
- DThey should be(21 more words not shown)
- EThey should be(12 more words not shown)
Reading the passage
What is the objection beneath all these details? A new way of producing fish is supposed to help with fish supplies. We should be concerned if producing fish this way ultimately leaves us with fewer fish overall. Look beyond the number harvested from the farm itself: wild fish used as feed and wild stocks damaged by pollution are part of the result too.
What we’re looking for
That gives us a principle about the overall outcome of a production method. We don't need to claim that every farm already causes a net loss to identify the kind of result the writer regards as a problem.
Working the answers
- A
A change in demand for traditionally caught fish can be beneficial here. If buyers switch to farmed substitutes and fewer wild fish are caught, that is one of the potential advantages the writer acknowledges. Keeping demand unchanged isn't a requirement.
- B
Economic efficiency, business survival, and jobs aren't the writer's conditions for approving a production method. The price discussion matters because of its effects on fishing, not because efficiency alone settles the evaluation.
- CCorrect
This captures the concern that a method intended to supply food could ultimately reduce the supply of that food. Counting farm output while ignoring the wild fish consumed or lost would miss the very problem the writer emphasizes. The principle is conditional; accepting it doesn't require proving that all fish farming meets its harmful condition.
- D
The writer doesn't give diversification of available foods plus environmental improvement as a rule for adopting new methods. The question is whether farming actually helps fish supplies, including the possible costs to wild stocks.
- E
Replacing harmful methods could be a benefit, but the writer doesn't make replacement an absolute prerequisite. A new method might add useful food without replacing an existing method. E imposes a requirement the argument doesn't establish.
More Application questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Application questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.