Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Medium

PT151 S1 P4 Q22 ExplanationSubduction Without Earthquakes

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

TopicsMain PointScience

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

According to the generally accepted theory of plate tectonics, the earth’s crust consists of a dozen or so plates of solid rock moving across the mantle—the slightly fluid layer of rock between crust and core. Most earthquakes can then be explained as a result of the grinding of these plates against one answer—how can often intense subduction take place at certain locations with little or no seismic effect?

One group of scientists now proposes that the relative quiet of these zones is tied to the nature of the collision between the plates. In many seismic hot zones, the plates exhibit motion in opposite directions—that is, they collide because they are moving toward each other. And because the two plates are two sheets of sandpaper pressed together, these plates offer each other a great deal of resistance.

This proposal also provides a warning. It suggests that regions that were previously thought to be seismically innocuous—regions with low levels of subduction—may in fact be at a significant risk nature of the subduction taking place.

What this question is testing

Main Point

Your task

Capture the passage's overall primary point — the claim everything else supports.

Common trap

Answers that are true but too narrow (a single paragraph) or too broad (beyond the passage's scope).

Winning move

Summarize the whole passage in one sentence first, then match it to a choice.

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

The question
22.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main point of

Answer choices, explained

  1. Wrong Emphasis3% picked this

    As a result of differences in resistance when colliding plates are moving in the same or in opposite directions, the amount of subduction in

    The passage is trying to stress that it's not just mere subduction that matters, it's the type of subduction. One kind doesn't lead to earthquakes, the other does. This answer could be decent if we just switched "the amount of subduction" for "the angle of subduction".

  2. Correct74% picked this

    The differences between how colliding plates interact when moving in the same or in opposite directions offer scientists a plausible explanation of the rarity

    Why this is right

    The end of the first paragraph poses a question, which is why we might choose Explain Something Curious as a framework. Curious Question How can there be intense subduction in some areas, but very few earthquakes? The answer to that question is our Main Point (the Explanation), and the explanation was that the angle of subduction, based on whether it's a head to head vs. head to tail collision, is the causal difference-maker.

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

  3. Contradicted: do not collide4% picked this

    Some scientists theorize that seismic “quiet zones” with almost no earthquakes occur where plates are traveling in the same direction and, consequently,

    Plates still collide in the same direction, but the angle of subduction is steeper, so we don't get the plate-on-plate friction that leads to earthquakes.

  4. Out of Scope7% picked this

    A new version of the theory of plate tectonics that abandons the generally accepted explanation of earthquakes as resulting from the process of subduction

    Out of Scope: abandoned Contradicted: not from subduction No one has abandoned the generally accepted explanation that earthquakes result from the process of subduction. We've just refined that statement: earthquakes result from shallow-angle subduction, not steep-angle subduction. We still believe that "every earthquake resulted from the process of subduction". We no longer believe that "the process of subduction always results in earthquakes".

  5. Out of Scope: threatened12% picked this

    The generally accepted theory of plate tectonics is threatened by new evidence that there are regions of the earth with high levels of subduction

    The generally accepted theory isn't threatened because we still believe, as it says, that earthquakes result from the process of subduction. We've just refined that statement: earthquakes result from shallow-angle subduction, not steep-angle subduction. We still believe that "every earthquake resulted from the process of subduction". We no longer believe that "the process of subduction always results in earthquakes".

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