Reading Comprehension

PT153 · S1 · P2 · Q14 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.

14.

The author of the passage would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements regarding pollution caused by fish farming?

Such pollution is problematic primarily
Too Strong
Too Strong: primarily Out of Scope: mutations The author never singled out one thing as the primary reason that pollution is a problem, nor does the 2nd paragraph talk about genetic mutations at all.
4% picked this
Such pollution contributes to coastal
Too Strong: more than any other
We know that pollution from fish farming can result in coastal degradation, but we can't support the hyperbolic statement that it does more coastal degradation than any other type of pollution.
4% picked this
Correct
Such pollution is less likely
Why this is right
The first sentence of the 2nd paragraph indicates that "the more intensive forms of fish farming, oriented towards high-volume production, threaten fisheries through water pollution". The following sentence continues talking about the polluting results of "Intensive fish farming". Since the author emphasized that subtype of fish farming as a source of pollution, we can support the idea that less intensive forms would be less likely to result in pollution. This style of correct answer we refer to as Flipping the Causal Difference-Maker. If a sentence in the text emphasizes a causal factor (e.g. "Ted was late to the party, because he took surface streets"), then a correct answer on a Most Supported task will often sound like, "Ted would have been more likely to be on time if he hadn't taken surface streets".
Skill tested: Author Opinion · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
74% picked this
Such pollution cannot be prevented
Too Strong: cannot without
There's nothing in the passage as strong as this claim, which says that "Government agencies must be involved, or else fish farmers will invariably cause pollution."
1% picked this
Such pollution is, however harmful,
Opposite
The author's main point in this passage is a healthy dose of skepticism that fish farming ultimately relieves the pressure on wild fishery stocks. Her previous sentence (the thesis at the end of paragraph 1) is saying that "Fish farming is a possible solution, but also a potential contributing factor, to the continued decline of ocean fishery stocks." The first sentence of the 2nd paragraph is saying that "intense fish farming threatens the sustainability of ocean fisheries through water pollution", which again suggests the opposite of what this answer choice is saying.
18% 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