Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Hard

PT103 S4 P3 Q19 Explanation

Dolphin Die-off

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

TopicsInferenceScience

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Passage

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. Since some of the dead animals never washed ashore, the overall disaster was presumably worse; perhaps 50 percent liver, lung, pancreas, and heart, which suggested a massive opportunistic bacterial infection of already weakened animals.

Tissues from the stricken dolphins were analyzed for a variety of toxins. Brevetoxin, a toxin produced by the blooming of the alga Ptychodiscus brevis, was present in eight out of seventeen dolphins tested. Tests for synthetic were present in almost all animals tested.

The research team concluded that brevetoxin poisoning was the most likely cause of the illnesses that killed the dolphins. Although P. brevis is ordinarily not found along the Atlantic coast, an unusual bloom of this organism—such blooms are called “red tides” because of the reddish color imparted by the blooming algae—did occur The combined impact made the dolphins vulnerable to opportunistic bacterial infection, the ultimate cause of death.

For several reasons, however, this explanation is not entirely plausible. First, bottlenose dolphins and P. brevis red tides are both common in the Gulf of Mexico, yet no dolphin die-off of a similar magnitude has been noted there. Second, dolphins began dying in June, hundreds of miles north of and some months that actually precipitated the die-off was a sharp increase in the dolphins’ exposure to synthetic pollutants.

What this question is testing

Inference

Your task

Find what must be true based on what the passage or stimulus states.

Common trap

Answers that are plausible or likely but not actually guaranteed by the text.

Winning move

Keep only the choice the statements fully support — eliminate anything that requires an extra assumption.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
19.

The explanation for the dolphin die-off given by the research team most strongly supports which one

Answer choices

  1. Out of Scope: effects on others4% picked this

    The biological mechanism by which brevetoxin affects dolphins is probably different from that by which it

    The researchers are only talking about what killed these dolphins. We don't have a way to support the idea that brevetoxin affects dolphins differently from how it affects other marine animals. We don't hear about other marine animals (other than the fish, who accumulate brevetoxin in their tissue). This answer is making it seem like brevetoxin has a "unique" physical interaction with dolphins, but we have not way of supporting that dolphins are special in terms of the biological mechanism by which brevetoxin affects them. This feels like a trap answer that's designed to get students thinking, "If we only talked about dolphins getting poisoned by brevetoxin, I guess other marine animals weren't getting poisoned (illegal inference), which means brevetoxin interacts with their biological mechanisms differently."

  2. Unsupported Comparison: more toxic7% picked this

    When P. brevis blooms in an area where it does not usually exist, it is more toxic than it

    The passage never gives any rationale for situations in which we'd expect brevetoxin to be more or less toxic than average. This answer wants students to think, "Since P. brevis normally isn't in this habitat, and since its presence here led to the poisoning a lot of dolphins, it must be more toxic when it shows up here (bad inference)." Brevetoxin might be just as toxic in its usual neighborhood. If we say, "tornadoes usually don't occur in Alabama, but one did in October 1987 and did a lot of damage", that doesn't mean that "tornadoes tend to do more damage when they occur in areas where they usually don't exist".

  3. Too Strong: usually12% picked this

    Opportunistic bacterial infection is usually associated with brevetoxin poisoning in

    The research team thinks that in this instance, opportunistic bacterial infection was associated with brevetoxin poisoning. But we have no support for generalizing that into what is usually the case.

  4. Opposite13% picked this

    The dolphins’ emaciated state was probably a symptom of PCB poisoning rather than

    The research team thought the emaciated appearance indicated that they were metabolizing their blubber and releasing stores of PCBs. But they think brevetoxin poisoning caused all this. Brevetoxin poisoning caused the dolphins to metabolize their blubber. Metabolizing your fat away leaves you in an emaciated state. The author is the one who thinks that the dolphins' issues primarily stem from PCB poisoning. The researchers only consider PCB the cherry on top. They think brevetoxin is the root cause.

  5. Correct64% picked this

    When a dolphin metabolizes its blubber, the PCBs released may be more dangerous to the dolphin than they were

    Why this is right

    The final two sentences of the 3rd paragraph support this. The researcher interpreted the emaciated appearance of the dolphins to mean that they were metabolizing their blubber, thereby ... releasing stores of previously accumulated synthetic pollutants, such as PCBs, which further exacerbated their condition. The combined impact made the dolphins vulnerable to opportunistic bacterial infection, the ultimate cause of death. Since releasing the PCB's exacerbated the downward health spiral of the dolphins, we can say it made their situation worse. This is doing a Flip the Causal Difference-Maker, by saying, "So you mean ... their situation was better when the PCB's weren't released?"

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

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

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