Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Hard

PT153 S1 P2 Q11 ExplanationFish Farming

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

TopicsPrincipleScience

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

Start practicing free

Free to start

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

A recent worldwide decline of ocean fishery stocks has stimulated rapid growth in cultivated production of fish and shellfish, usually known as fish farming. Between 1987 and 1997, for example, global fish production from farming doubled. Fish farming produces a quarter of all fish and shellfish eaten by humans, and, as global solution, but also a potential contributing factor, to the continued decline of ocean fishery stocks worldwide.

In the first place, the more intensive forms of fish farming, oriented toward high-volume production, threaten the sustainability of ocean fisheries through water pollution and ecological disruption. Intensive fish farming usually involves the enclosure of fish in a secure system; population densities are typically high, resulting in the generation of large amounts pathogens can all ensue, seriously damaging ocean and coastal resources and, ultimately, wild fishery stocks.

Even more important, intensive farming of many species of fish requires large inputs of fish meal and fish oil in order to supply fatty acids that vegetable matter lacks or essential amino acids that it inadequately supplies, like lysine and methionine. For the ten species of fish most commonly farmed, an average carnivorous species requires up to 5 kilograms of wild fish for every kilogram of fish produced.

Expanding farm production does have the potential to alleviate some of the pressure on wild fishery stocks. For example, increasing the farm production of fish like salmon can reduce prices, deterring investment in fishing fleets and, over time, reducing fishing efforts. Similarly, other farmed fish like tilapia and channel catfish provide alternatives catch rates to remain high even as the production of viable farmed substitutes has increased.

What this question is testing

Principle

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
11.

The views put forward in the passage conform most closely to which one of the following principles governing new

Answer choices, explained

  1. Bad Evidence Match3% picked this

    They should be employed only if they do not result in major changes in consumer demand for foods

    The contrapositive of this is saying, if a new method of food production results then that new food in major changes in ? production method consumer demand shouldn't be used for traditional foods This trigger doesn't match any of the complaints the author made. In fact, we might consider consumers' switching from wild cod and haddock to farmed tilapia and catfish to be a major change in consumer demand, and that was actually one of the things the author liked about fish farming.

  2. Bad Evidence Match3% picked this

    They should be employed if they are economically more efficient than existing methods and their use will not result in business

    This rule says: if a new method of food production then that new is more economically ? food production efficient and method should won't result in be used business failures or lost jobs This trigger doesn't match either of the compliments the author made. In particular, she never talked about whether businesses would fail or jobs would be lost as a result of fish farming. Also, it would be peculiar if we ended up picking a principle that says "we should employ this new method", since it felt the author overall has more misgivings than encouragement.

  3. Correct42% picked this

    They should not be employed if they will ultimately result in a net decrease in food

    Why this is right

    This rule says: if a new method of food production will then that new food ultimately result in ? production method net decrease of should not be used that type of food This trigger matches the discussion in the 3rd paragraph, in which we learned that it takes between 1.9 - 5 kg of wild fish to get 1 kg of farmed fish. Based on that input / output ratio, the practice of fish farming is resulting in a net decrease of fish. Of course, this answer is being a little bit "cute" in the sense that if a fish farm's type of food produced is understood as salmon, then it's not fair to say that fish farming salmon results in a net decrease in salmon produced. But if you define this simply as fish, then the author did establish that fish farming will result in a net decrease in fish (as a product in human markets, not on the planet).

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

  4. Bad Evidence Match29% picked this

    They should be employed if they promote diversification in the types of foods available for human consumption and help

    This rule says: if a new method of food production then that new food promotes food ? production method diversification should be used and brings about environmental improvement This trigger doesn't match either of the compliments the author made. The author mentioned that people would switch from wild cod/haddock to farmed tilapia/catfish. But swapping these 2 for those 2 isn't really diversifying the types of food available for consumption. And the author definitely does not think that fish farming improves the environment. To the contrary, the 2nd paragraph told us that fish farming has some bad effects on the environment. Also, it would be peculiar if we ended up picking a principle that says "we should employ this new method", since it felt the author overall has more misgivings than encouragement when it comes to this new method.

  5. Bad Evidence Match23% picked this

    They should be employed only if they replace other methods that have

    The contrapositive of this is saying, if a new method of food production doesn't then that new food replace other method ? production method that had undesirable should not be used ecological effects This trigger doesn't match any of the complaints the author made. She never said, "ocean fishing didn't have any undesirable ecological effects, thus fish farming should not be employed". The author speaks of fish farming relieving pressure on wild fishery stocks, so it's implied that wild fishing was putting pressure on wild fishery stocks (an undesirable ecological effect). In fact, it may even be that wild fishing has contributed to the worldwide decline of ocean fishery stocks, which is an undesirable ecological effect.

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