Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Hard

PT151 S1 P4 Q25 Explanation

Subduction Without Earthquakes

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

TopicsAdd to the PassageScience

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

Add to the Passage

Your task

Pin down exactly what the question asks about the passage — a detail, the author's view, the structure, or the main point — before looking at the choices.

Common trap

Answers that restate a true detail from the passage but don't answer the specific question being asked.

Winning move

Anticipate the answer in your own words from the passage, then find the choice that matches that prediction.

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

The question
25.

Based on the information in the passage, which one of the following sentences would most logically complete

Answer choices

  1. Too Narrow5% picked this

    Depending on the relationship between plate velocity and mantle, there is always the possibility that

    This doesn't sound like a final paragraph idea (about the potential for low subduction zones to still have big quakes), and it doesn't sound like an overall takeaway type of idea. It sounds like a minor detail that would have been packaged into paragraph 2.

  2. Too Strong9% picked this

    The lower the level of subduction in an area, the greater the probability that any subduction there is

    Too Strong: the less X, the more Y Our new understanding is that within both heavy and light subduction zones, you might have both opposite-direction collisions (which cause quakes) and same-direction collisions (which don't). It's messy and erratic, not a clear Volume Dial type relationship like this answer says.

  3. Unsupported Causal Relationship25% picked this

    Any region where subduction occurs could suffer an increase in the level of subduction and a consequent

    The passage hasn't set us up to believe that "more subduction = more earthquakes". The passage has been educating us that what really matters is "more opposite-direction collisions = more earthquakes".

  4. Too Strong: inevitably Contradicted12% picked this

    Even at low levels, the process known as subduction inevitably results in a significant amount

    The passage is enlightening us that it's not technically just subduction that causes earthquakes, it's only one type of subduction, the kind when plates collide from opposite directions. So at any level of subduction, if you only had same-direction collisions, then you wouldn't have any risk of significant seismic activity.

  5. Correct48% picked this

    Even in such a region, a plate descending at a shallow angle is likely to cause a great

    Why this is right

    This answer isn't giving us a big idea to bookend the passage. It's just offering us a causal elaboration of the current final sentence. The author was saying that "even in regions with low subduction, you still might have a big risk of subduction ... if, when plates do collide, they collide from opposite directions." This answer is spelling out that bold idea, but it's using the 'code-swapping' language we know is associated with opposite direction collisions. Opposite direction Same direction relatively still mantle faster-moving mantle shallow descent steep descent lots of friction not much friction earthquakes no earthquakes

    Skill tested: Add to the Passage · 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