Reading Comprehension

PT153 · S1 · P2 · Q10 Fish Farming

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 recent worldwide decline of ocean fishery stocks has stimulated rapid growth in cultivated production of fish and shellfish, usually known as fish farming.

Topic

The impact of fish farming on global ocean fishery stocks

Framework

Problem / Solution

Main Point

While fish farming has grown rapidly and seems like a solution to declining wild fish stocks, it is also part of the problem due to pollution, ecological disruption, and heavy reliance on wild fish as feed. So, fish farming is both potentially helpful and harmful for ocean fisheries. (The "Most Valuable Sentence" appears at the end of the first paragraph: )

P1: The Rise and Paradox of Fish Farming

Fish farming is booming as ocean fisheries decline and now supplies a large portion of seafood eaten by people. Some believe it could save wild fish stocks, but there’s not much proof—it might help, but could also make things worse.

P2: Environmental Impacts of Intensive Fish Farming

High-density fish farming can cause big problems: it pollutes waterways, spreads diseases, and lets non-native species escape, all of which can hurt wild fish populations and damage natural habitats.

P3: Reliance on Wild Fish as Feed

Many farmed fish, especially carnivores like salmon, need to eat a lot of wild fish to grow—often more than the resulting harvest. This means that farming some species puts even more pressure on wild fish stocks.

10.

The information in the passage most strongly supports which one of the following statements?

  1. Any further decline in ocean

    Out of Scope: non-human cause

    This language is super soft and lovable, so we should give this answer a good chance. To support that "any further X would not be caused entirely by Y", we would just need to be able to say that "a further instance of X would be caused in part by Z"? Can we say that a further decline in ocean fishery stocks will be caused at least in part by something unrelated to human activities? We don't have anything in the passage that sounds like a nonhuman cause of decline to ocean fishery stocks.

    4% picked this

  2. The best way to reduce

    Too Strong

    Too Strong: best Unknown Comparison Goes Against Passage Not only is this way too strong to be derivable (the passage does not rank all the different ways to reduce the price of wild-caught fish), it is somewhat undermined by the very end of the passage. It says that putting a farmed variety of salmon on the market can reduce prices of wild-caught salmon, deterring investment in fishing fleets and efforts to get wild-caught salmon. But then the passage says, "nonetheless, even these benefits may in the end be lost". That doesn't sound like rousing praise for "the best way".

    7% picked this

  3. If fish farming does not

    Too Strong: unlikely

    This answer could be rephrased, "In order for world protein needs to be met, we will probably have to continue increasing fish farming." Our author isn't even a big fan of fish farming, so it would be weird for him to be communicating that it's likely to be essential to meeting worldwide protein needs. We were told that fish farming "will probably become even more important in supplying human protein needs",

    9% picked this

  4. Most consumers do not perceive

    Too Strong

    Too Strong: most Out of Scope: consumer perception Unknown Comparison The passage never talks about consumers' perceptions of farmed vs. wild fish. We don't know whether most people can perceive a difference or not.

    2% picked this

  5. Correct

    The use of wild fish

    Why this is right

    This answer reflects the gist of the 3rd paragraph. We won't find its essence contained in any one sentence, but instead in the structural logic of the passage. The end of the 1st paragraph is saying, "Fish farming is a possible solution, but also a potential contributing factor, to the continued decline of ocean fishery stocks worldwide". The 2nd paragraph discusses one reason why fish farming can contribute to the decline of worldwide ocean fishery stocks: "In the first place ... fish farming can hurt fishery stocks via pollution and ecological disturbance" Then the 3rd paragraph discusses another reason why fish farming can contribute to the decline of worldwide ocean fishery stocks: "Even more important ... fish farming involves feeding those fish 1.9 kg of wild fish for ever 1 kg of farmed fish produced." So the 3rd paragraph is saying that this "net loss" we experience through fish farming (we spend 1.9 kg of wild fish to get 1.0 kg of farmed fish) is the more important reason why fish farming is a potential contributing factor to the continued decline of ocean fishery stocks worldwide.

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

    77% 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