Reading Comprehension

PT8 · S3 · P1 · Q4 rDNA

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

After thirty years of investigation into cell genetics, researchers made startling discoveries in the 1960s and early 1970s which culminated in the development of processes, collectively known as recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (rDNA) technology, for the active manipulation of a cell’s genetic code.

Topic

The benefits and risks of recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology

Framework

Present Debate

Main Point

The passage presents the promise of rDNA technology for medicine, industry, and agriculture, while also detailing scientific, ecological, and ethical risks that critics fear. (The core of the debate is especially clear in the last two paragraphs, where critics’ concerns are contrasted with proponents’ optimism.)

P1: Introduction to rDNA Technology

After decades of research, scientists in the 1960s-70s developed rDNA technology, which lets them actively change a cell’s genetic code. This caused both excitement and controversy because it gives humans the power to alter DNA.

P2: How rDNA Works

The passage explains, in straightforward terms, that scientists can now transfer pieces of DNA between organisms—essentially “cutting and pasting” genes to create new, custom organisms.

P3: Medical and Pharmaceutical Promise

Fans of rDNA believe it will lead to cures for major diseases and open up deeper knowledge of genetics. Pharmaceutical companies are especially interested, hoping for revolutionary new drugs created by genetically engineered microbes, and some products are already in the pipeline.

4.

Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken an argument of opponents of rDNA technology?

  1. Correct

    New safety procedures developed by

    Why this is right

    This helps us argue, "Don't worry about genetically altered microorganisms escaping from the lab, interacting unpredictably with nature, and unraveling our current ecosystems." After all, it says, it's impossible for them to escape from labs. Sweet! Doesn't get any stronger than impossible.

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

    88% picked this

  2. A genetically altered microorganism accidentally

    Less Impact

    The fact that an escaped organism got successfully contained is somewhat helpful. It helps us argue, "Don't worry about genetically altered microorganisms escaping from the lab, interacting unpredictably with nature, and unraveling our current ecosystems. After all, one of them that escaped was successfully contained." Opponents would be like, "Well that's good --- but you see that there's clearly a risk of them escaping the lab. What if we're not so lucky next time and it isn't successfully contained?!" This answer definitely has less impact than (A), which is a stronger guarantee that we don't have to worry about these new organisms escaping from the lab.

    3% picked this

  3. A particular rDNA-engineered microorganism introduced

    Less Impact

    This somewhat helps us argue, "Don't worry that rDNA organisms interacting with natural organisms and unraveling ecosystems. After all, there was this one rDNA organism whose population numbers were kept small by a local predator species." Like (B), this mildly helps, but it's just one case in which we don't have to be alarmed. We don't know if all cases will be this benign. So it's not nearly as strong as (A).

    2% picked this

  4. Genetically altered organisms designed to

    Less Impact

    This helps us argue, "Don't worry about genetically altered microorganisms escaping from the lab, interacting unpredictably with nature, and unraveling our current ecosystems. After all, one of them can't even survive outside the plant where they're used." Opponents would be like, "Well that's good news, in regards to the specific organism we made to process sewage into methane --- but what if other organisms we design are able to survive outside the lab or outside the place where they're designed to be used?" Since this answer only makes us feel safer, when it comes to one type of genetically altered organism, it has less impact than (A), which tells us that none of these organisms would ever escape the lab.

    5% picked this

  5. A specific hereditary disease that

    Unrelated to Goal

    We're supposed to weaken argument made by opponents of rDNA. They had two arguments: 1. the rDNA organisms might escape from the lab, interact unpredictably with nature and mess up ecosystems. 2. we might start using this technology on humans, which could reshape society in dystopian ways This answer doesn't go against either of those arguments. This answer would only weaken if one of the opponents' arguments had been, "This rDNA technology is stupid because it's not going to lead to any medical breakthroughs".

    2% 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