Fish Farming

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong4% picked this

   Such pollution is problematic primarily because of the genetic mutations it would cause in wild fish that

   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%
2. B

   Too Strong: more than any other4% picked this

   Such pollution contributes to coastal degradation more than any other type

   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%
3. C

   Correct73% picked this

   Such pollution is less likely to occur if fish farming enterprises do not pursue

   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.

   73%
4. D

   Too Strong: cannot without1% picked this

   Such pollution cannot be prevented by fish farmers alone without the involvement

   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%
5. E

   Opposite18% picked this

   Such pollution is, however harmful, unlikely to prevent fish farming from eventually relieving the pressure

   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%