Reading Comprehension

PT103 · S4 · P3 · Q16 Dolphin Die-off

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Between June 1987 and May 1988, the bodies of at least 740 bottlenose dolphins out of a total coastal population of 3,000 to 5,000 washed ashore on the Atlantic coast of the United States.

Topic

The cause of a massive die-off of bottlenose dolphins on the Atlantic coast in 1987–1988.

Framework

Answer / Explain

Main Point

The passage examines why a severe die-off of bottlenose dolphins occurred, presenting a commonly accepted explanation (brevetoxin poisoning from an algal bloom) but ultimately arguing that a sudden increase in synthetic pollutants, such as PCBs, was likely the main precipitating factor, with brevetoxin possibly playing a secondary role. (The “most valuable sentence” is at the end of the final paragraph: )

P1: The Scale and Features of the Dolphin Die-Off

Between 1987–1988, about half the coastal bottlenose dolphins died in an unprecedented event, with affected dolphins showing a wide variety of symptoms, likely due to a massive, opportunistic bacterial infection.

P2: Possible Toxins Identified

Researchers tested dolphin tissues for natural and synthetic toxins, finding brevetoxin from an algal bloom in some, and PCBs—a manmade pollutant—in almost all dolphins.

P3: Brevetoxin Hypothesis

The research team initially concluded the red tide algal toxin (brevetoxin) was the main culprit, as there had been a bloom of this alga in the area. The dolphins’ stressed, emaciated state also likely released more pollutants from their fat, making them even more vulnerable to infection.

16.

Which one of the following is most analogous to the approach taken by the author of the passage with regard to the research described in the third paragraph?

  1. Correct

    A physics teacher accepts the

    Why this is right

    We can make this work. The author accepted the data that the research team was using (the existence of a red bloom, the PCB and brevetoxin levels of the sampled dolphins, the observed symptoms of the dolphins), but she questions their conclusions. "For several reasons, this explanation (their conclusions) is not entirely plausible".

    Skill tested: Analogy · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

    59% picked this

  2. An astronomer provides additional observations

    Opposite: support

    Our author does provide some additional observations (no dolphin die-off in this other red tide / there were dolphins dying in June in the north far in time and space from the red tide), but they are used to oppose the researchers' theory.

    15% picked this

  3. A cook revises a traditional

    Weak Match: substituting ingredients

    Our author does "revise the recipe" of the researchers' conclusions in her final sentence, because she's saying, "PCB poisoning was the main ingredient; brevetoxin was just a contributing factor". But the author isn't actually switching out one set of ingredients for another. It's the same ingredients, just being combined in a different ratio. Researchers: brevetoxin was the main ingredient, with a sprinkle of PCB poisoning. Author: the reverse

    5% picked this

  4. A doctor prescribes medication for

    Weak Match: medication

    We could say that our author is arguing that the researchers misdiagnosed what killed the dolphins, but the author's preferred explanation would then be called the correct diagnosis. It would not be called a prescription for a remedy. There's no way to save these dead dolphins now. The author isn't saying, "Here's how we fix the dead dolphin problem". He's only saying, "Here's what caused the dead dolphin problem".

    20% picked this

  5. A microbiologist sets out to

    No Match: replicate experiment

    Our author is tearing down their explanation and then building up her own. There's no way in which we could call that "replicating their experiment".

    1% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free