Reading Comprehension

PT118 · S2 · P1 · Q6 Disaster Relief

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

A number of natural disasters in recent years—such as earthquakes, major storms, and floods—that have affected large populations of people have forced relief agencies, communities, and entire nations to reevaluate the ways in which they respond in the aftermaths of such disasters.

Topic

How disaster relief responses can be improved to better serve affected communities

Framework

Problem / Solution

Main Point

Traditional post-disaster aid, which focuses on immediate and large-scale responses, often creates more problems than it solves; a more effective approach would center on long-term recovery and empowering communities to guide aid efforts based on their actual needs. The Most Valuable Sentence occurs at the end of P3:

P1: Traditional Disaster Relief & Its Shortcomings

Describes how traditional disaster relief efforts focus on rapid, massive aid responses right after a disaster, assuming this approach will offset the negative effects, but recent experience shows it's ineffective and sometimes even harmful.

P2: Negative Consequences of the Traditional Approach

Critics explain that this method can lead to its own set of problems, like overwhelming local infrastructures, misdirected resources, and even disappearance of money and supplies due to lack of coordination and oversight.

P3: Proposal for a Better, Community-Led Solution

Experts suggest that relief efforts should be designed by and with the input of local communities, focusing on long-term needs and preparedness, so that aid is both more effective and more appropriate for those affected.

Which one of the following inferences about natural disasters and relief efforts is most strongly supported by the passage?

Although inefficiencies have long been
Out of Scope
Out of Scope: limited resources Out of Scope: aggravated inefficiencies Unknown Comparison: increased demands The passage never says anything about relief agencies' limited resources. The only time we talk about resources is in the 2nd paragraph, where it talks about "a large influx of resources" being taxing on the local infrastructure. We know that disasters in recent years "have forced people to reevaluate the ways in which they respond in the aftermaths of disasters", but the passage doesn't say that there have been increased demands that have aggravated inefficiencies.
7% picked this
Local communities had expressed little
Out of Scope: little interest
We know that in the past we haven't done a good job with involving local communities in planning for their disaster relief preparedness. But we don't know that this is because the local communities have expressed little interest. The passage suggests it's more likely that this is because donors are only motivated to get involved in the immediate aftermath. So the local communities might have had a lot of interest in taking responsibility for their own preparedness, but relief agencies aren't necessarily reaching out to them to start a dialogue. In other words, this passage was more about blaming the inefficient methodologies of relief agencies and donors, whereas this answer feels more like it's blaming the local communities.
2% picked this
Numerous relief efforts in the
Too Strong: most needs / few questioned
This has some loaded claims we can't find support for. The disasters in recent years spurred us to reconsider our methods, but that's not because "The recent relief efforts were terrible, whereas the ones before that were good!" This answer is saying that prior to the last couple years, disaster relief efforts were awesome: most needs were met / few communities questioned traditional disaster response methods. We can't find language to support either of those strong claims. This answer also makes it sound like the reason these previous efforts were so good is that "the quantity of aid was so vast" that it took care of mostly everything. Meanwhile, the passage is telling us that a large influx of aid is sometimes counterproductive and can lead to a secondary "disaster".
9% picked this
Members of communities affected by
Out of Scope: long argued
We know that relief agencies have only recently started trying to create more of a dialogue with vulnerable communities before disaster strikes. But this answer adds some backstory that makes it sound like for years and years, the local communities were imploring relief agencies to do so (they've "long argued for this"), and the relief agencies were hearing them and saying "Sorry, you're wrong" until recently. We can't support that backstory.
8% picked this
Correct
A number of wasteful relief
Why this is right
There's no visible support sentence for the causal connection described here: "recent disasters dramatically illustrated that aid programs were implemented with little accountability to affected populations" But this answer seems best supported by the logic of the passage. The passage says - a number of natural disasters in recent years have forced relief agencies and donors to reevaluate the way they respond. The verb "forced to reevaluate" is what's conveying the nature of "dramatically illustrated that there's a problem with the status quo". We hear about part of the problem - teams of uninvited relief experts and personnel flood the city The passage goes on to tell us the "solutions" it has in mind, and we can infer that anything found in a "solution" is something that we haven't previously been doing. - to develop a more effective approach .... a response that produces lasting benefit ... requires that community members define the form and method of aid most appropriate to their needs. - the practical effect of this approach is that aid (in the future would) take the form of a response to the stated desires of those affected rather than an immediate, though less informed, action on their behalf. We have to put all this together to support this answer. What we've learned from recent disasters is that we should be more accountable to local communities (talk to them in advance about what they want / need and follow their lead) rather than rapidly infusing the area with an influx of aid and uninvited outsiders.
Skill tested: Inference · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
75% 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