Reading Comprehension

PT132 · S1 · P1 · Q4 Lichenometry

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

To study centuries-old earthquakes and the geologic faults that caused them, seismologists usually dig trenches along visible fault lines, looking for sediments that show evidence of having shifted.

Topic

Lichenometry — a new method for detecting and dating past earthquakes — and how it compares to radiocarbon dating.

Framework

Highlight Noteworthy. The author introduces the new method, explains how it works, and notes its advantages over radiocarbon dating along with its limitations.

Main Point

Lichenometry, developed by Bull and Brandon, is a new method for dating past earthquakes that has distinct advantages over radiocarbon dating, though its use requires careful site selection and accurate calibration.

P1: The traditional method — radiocarbon dating

Seismologists dig trenches along fault lines, looking for shifted sediments. They use radiocarbon dating on organic materials trapped in those sediments to reconstruct the age of past earthquakes — useful for predicting future ones.

P2: The new method — lichenometry

Bull and Brandon developed lichenometry: large earthquakes generate simultaneous rockfalls; lichens colonize newly exposed rock surfaces and grow at a slow but constant rate (e.g., 9.5 mm/century). The diameter of the largest lichen on a boulder dates the rockfall. Many simultaneous rockfalls over a wide area imply a strong earthquake. Mapping rockfall density gives the epicenter.

P3: Lichenometry's advantages — and caveats

Radiocarbon is accurate only to ±40 years (because atmospheric carbon-14 varies); past 300-year fluctuations make many radiocarbon datings of recent events of little value. Lichenometry can date earthquakes to within 10 years. Caveats: requires careful site selection and accurate calibration; best for earthquakes within the last 500 years; sites must minimize avalanche/disturbance; growth-affecting conditions (shade, wind) must be factored in.

4.

Which one of the following statements is most strongly supported by the passage?

  1. Lichenometry is less accurate than

    Trap

    Unsupported Comparison Lichenometry is more accurate than radiocarbon dating in dating earthquakes within the past 500 years. However, the passage does not indicate which method is better at predicting the likelihood and location of future earthquakes.

    3% picked this

  2. Correct

    Radiocarbon dating is unlikely to

    Why this is right

    This is supported in the first paragraph.

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

    41% picked this

  3. Radiocarbon dating and lichenometry are

    Too Strong

    While radiocarbon dating and lichenometry are both viable methods for detecting and dating past earthquakes (first and second paragraph), the passage does not suggest that these are the only two methods.

    2% picked this

  4. Radiocarbon dating is more accurate

    Contradiction

    Lichenometry is more accurate than radiocarbon dating (third paragraph) and 400 years is within the 500-year window that is the recommended limit for using lichenometry (third paragraph).

    1% picked this

  5. The usefulness of lichenometry for

    Contradiction

    The passage suggests that lichenometry can be successfully used in regions where factors accelerate lichen growth (lines 54–58).

    52% picked this

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