Reading Comprehension

PT115 · S1 · P1 · Q2 Industrial Ecosystem

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

By the year 2030, the Earth’s population is expected to increase to 10 billion; ideally, all would enjoy standards of living equivalent to those of present-day industrial democracies.

Topic

The challenge of sustaining Earth's rising population with current resource use and the proposed shift to a more sustainable, integrated "industrial ecosystem."

Framework

Problem / Solution

Main Point

To support 10 billion people at current consumption rates would quickly exhaust resources and create unsustainable waste, so we should rethink industrial practices and move toward an integrated industrial ecosystem that recycles and reuses materials more like nature does. (Most Valuable Sentence: The entire second paragraph outlines the solution and begins with )

P1: Setting up the Problem - Resource and Waste Concerns

Earth's population could soon hit 10 billion, but if everyone consumes resources and produces waste at today's industrialized levels, we would quickly run out of vital materials and bury our cities under massive piles of garbage.

P2: Proposing a Solution - Shift to an Industrial Ecosystem

The author isn’t predicting doom, but pointing out that we need incentives for recycling and a new model for industry: transforming from a one-way system that produces waste to a closed-loop "industrial ecosystem" where waste from one process becomes input for another.

P3: Explaining the Industrial Ecosystem and Early Moves Toward It

In an ideal industrial ecosystem, resources would cycle through different uses indefinitely, like nutrients in nature. Some manufacturers are already designing waste that can directly re-enter production, which reduces the need for new raw materials and lowers pollution.

The author of the passage would most probably agree with which one of the following statements about standards of living?

An increase in the standard
Out of Scope: decrease
The first sentence of the passage is talking about bringing the standard of living in developing countries up to meet that of industrialized countries. The passage never talks about the standard of living in industrialized countries dipping as a result. The passage is saying that there's no way we could keep all countries at that level for more than 10 years, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the standard of living in industrialized countries would ever go down.
1% picked this
It is likely that the
Too Strong: likely / substantially
The passage is never talking about standards of living decreasing by 2030, let alone substantially. It's saying by 2030 we'll have 10 billion people, and if we lived in a hypothetical 2030 where all 10 billion people enjoyed a standard of living comparable to what industrialized democracies currently have, then we would use resources at an unsustainable rate and standard of living would reduce for at least some by 2040.
7% picked this
The current standard of living
Too Strong: cannot, if increases
The passage says that the current standard of living of industrialized countries cannot be sustained if there were a global population of 10 billion who all enjoyed the current standard of living and used resources at the current rate. This answer is saying, "if population of the world increases at all ... if one more baby is born, then current standard of living cannot be sustained". Also, the author is saying we can't sustain the current standard of living if .. 1. all 10 billion have that standard 2. all 10 billion consumer critical natural resources at the current per capita rates of industrialized countries If #1 or #2 (or both) fail to occur, then we might be able to sustain our standard of living.
38% picked this
Correct
All countries could enjoy a
Why this is right
It's really hard to pick an answer that's worded in such an extreme fashion ... "all countries would have a high standard of living and wouldn't deplete natural resources?" Sounds overly optimistic, doesn't it? Yes, but we're talking about what the world would be like if we implemented an ideal industrial ecosystem. This answer isn't saying we can implement such an ecosystem or that we will. It's just claiming something about the concept of an ideal industrial ecosystem. Would our author agree that the concept of an ideal industrial ecosystem is one in which all countries can enjoy a high standard of living without depleting resources? Yes, that's the gist of the first two paragraphs. The author is establishing our goal of having all 10 billion people enjoy the same high standard of living currently enjoyed by industrial democracies, but without consuming critical resources at our current rates. The 3rd paragraph begins, "Materials in an ideal industrial ecosystem would not be depleted any more than are materials in a biological ecosystem", with the implication being that "materials in a biological ecosystem aren't depleted". The 3rd paragraph acknowledges that the ideal ecosystem will still use energy and generate waste, but it never says it will deplete a natural resource. Again, the best chance we have for liking this answer is finding specific problems with the other four and then resolving our qualms that this answer is worded too strongly with the reminder that we're describing an ideal, not a prediction about the actual world to come.
Skill tested: Author Opinion · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
47% picked this
Supplies of critical natural resources
Too Strong
Too Strong: serious danger Out of Scope: reduce by 2030 The passage is never talking about trying to reduce standards of living prior to 2030, as this answer is. It's saying by 2030 we'll have 10 billion people, and if we lived in a hypothetical 2030 where all 10 billion people enjoyed a standard of living comparable to what industrialized democracies currently have (and depleted critical natural resources at our current rate), then we would use resources at an unsustainable rate and standard of living would reduce for at least some by 2040. This answer is saying, "if industrialized and developing countries don't reduce their standards of living now, then by 2030 our critical natural resources will be in serious danger of depletion". The author isn't saying, "we have to reduce standards of living or else we're screwed by 2030". She's saying, "We have to move more to recycling, conservation, and alternative materials. And we should transform the traditional model of industrial activity into a more integrated model." In other words, she's saying, "Let's get to work on transforming our thinking about consumption and waste, so that we won't have to face shortages of critical resources by 2040."
8% 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