LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 Administrator
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 7689
  • Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
#65993
Please post your questions below!
 bukkaabh
  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: Aug 10, 2019
|
#67217
For this question I chose answer E after a run-through of the test. All of the answer choices have a normative "should" or "should not" statement regarding the new methods, but in the passage, none of the viewpoints really talk about what should be done with the fish farms, just that they have potential drawbacks and solutions. It seemed to me that many of the problems they discussed were related to how much pressure they really took off of fishery stocks and the impact on the environment (line 30). Can you explain where in the passage the author discusses that there should not be a net decrease in the amount of fish produced (as correct answer choice C says)? Thanks!
User avatar
 KelseyWoods
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 972
  • Joined: Jun 26, 2013
|
#67236
Hi Bukkaabh!

You are correct that the author does not explicitly tell us what he thinks should or should not be done with regard to food production. This question isn't asking us to explicitly identify the author's viewpoint. Instead, we are being asked to find a principle that the author's viewpoint seems to agree with. We can do this by looking at what the author thinks are the problems and benefits of fish farming.

The "only if" in answer choice (E) is a bit strong. As you say, the author does thoroughly discuss environmental impacts in the passage, but not to the extent we can say he'd agree that the ONLY reason to employ a new method of food production is to replace other methods with undesirable ecological effects.

The support for answer choice (C) is in paragraph 3, when the author describes how farm fish require wild fish as a food source and, in most cases, many more kilograms of wild fish are required for each farm fish. The author frames this as a problem, hence the author's view conforms to the principle that a new food source should not result in a net decrease in food of the type produced.

Basically, for a question like this, we don't necessarily need to take into account the passage as a whole. We're just looking for a principle that at least one part of the author's viewpoint would conform to.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey
 JulesC
  • Posts: 16
  • Joined: Jul 11, 2019
|
#72148
Hello,

For this question, I didn't chose C because I thought that the author didn't necessarily believe in the principle in C being that in the third paragraph the author states that opposing view that wild carnivorous fish consume more food than on a farm. I thought that this meant the author didn't necessarily believe in the principle stated in C.

Thanks,

Jules
 James Finch
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 944
  • Joined: Sep 06, 2017
|
#72178
Hi Jules,

The "although" in that statement is key; the author here is conceding that a premise for a counterargument might be correct, but then immediately undercuts the value of that premise by offering up a counter-premise about the net cost in fish mass of fish farming. This whole paragraph is essentially arguing, in a Most Strongly Supported sense of not actually stating a conclusion, merely implying one, that fish farming is inefficient because more fish is required to feed fish on a farm than is ultimately produced by the fish farm. This is what (C) is saying, and why it is a Most Strongly Supported question, as we don't know that the author believes this with 100% certainty but seems very likely to do so based on the facts presented in the third paragraph.

Hope this helps!
 theamazingrace
  • Posts: 68
  • Joined: Oct 17, 2020
|
#80484
KelseyWoods wrote:Hi Bukkaabh!

You are correct that the author does not explicitly tell us what he thinks should or should not be done with regard to food production. This question isn't asking us to explicitly identify the author's viewpoint. Instead, we are being asked to find a principle that the author's viewpoint seems to agree with. We can do this by looking at what the author thinks are the problems and benefits of fish farming.

The "only if" in answer choice (E) is a bit strong. As you say, the author does thoroughly discuss environmental impacts in the passage, but not to the extent we can say he'd agree that the ONLY reason to employ a new method of food production is to replace other methods with undesirable ecological effects.

The support for answer choice (C) is in paragraph 3, when the author describes how farm fish require wild fish as a food source and, in most cases, many more kilograms of wild fish are required for each farm fish. The author frames this as a problem, hence the author's view conforms to the principle that a new food source should not result in a net decrease in food of the type produced.

Basically, for a question like this, we don't necessarily need to take into account the passage as a whole. We're just looking for a principle that at least one part of the author's viewpoint would conform to.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey
What is the question stem referring to with" methods of food production" are we talking about the food to feed the fish in the farms? and does " a new food source should not result in a net decrease in the food of the type produced" mean that a new food source to feed the fishes in the farm should not be more than is produced like mentioned in the third paragraph? (1.9 KG of wild fish is required for every 1 KG fish produced).
User avatar
 KelseyWoods
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 972
  • Joined: Jun 26, 2013
|
#81251
Hi theamazingrace!

"Methods of food production" is not referring to the food used to feed the fish. The fish themselves are being farmed or caught to be food for humans. So fish farming/catching is the method of food production. It gets a little confusing because farm fish eat wild fish. But, because it takes more wild fish to feed farm fish than farm fish actually produced, farming fish results in a net decrease in the type of food being produced (they end up killing more fish than are actually produced for humans to eat).

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey
 VamosRafa19
  • Posts: 39
  • Joined: Nov 14, 2020
|
#83162
KelseyWoods wrote: Mon Aug 12, 2019 12:38 pm Hi Bukkaabh!

You are correct that the author does not explicitly tell us what he thinks should or should not be done with regard to food production. This question isn't asking us to explicitly identify the author's viewpoint. Instead, we are being asked to find a principle that the author's viewpoint seems to agree with. We can do this by looking at what the author thinks are the problems and benefits of fish farming.

The "only if" in answer choice (E) is a bit strong. As you say, the author does thoroughly discuss environmental impacts in the passage, but not to the extent we can say he'd agree that the ONLY reason to employ a new method of food production is to replace other methods with undesirable ecological effects.

The support for answer choice (C) is in paragraph 3, when the author describes how farm fish require wild fish as a food source and, in most cases, many more kilograms of wild fish are required for each farm fish. The author frames this as a problem, hence the author's view conforms to the principle that a new food source should not result in a net decrease in food of the type produced.

Basically, for a question like this, we don't necessarily need to take into account the passage as a whole. We're just looking for a principle that at least one part of the author's viewpoint would conform to.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey
"The author frames this as a problem, hence the author's view conforms to the principle that a new food source should not result in a net decrease in food of the type produced." - I'm not sure I follow this. How is this supported by "many more kilograms of wild fish are required for each farm fish"? That could still be the case, and the food type being produced could increase or stay the same, they'd just need to catch a lot more wild fish. I don't think it'd be a particularly good idea but it's possible.
User avatar
 KelseyWoods
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 972
  • Joined: Jun 26, 2013
|
#83796
Hi VamosRafa19!

Check out this sentence from paragraph 3: "For the ten species of fish most commonly farmed, an average of 1.9 kilograms of wild fish is required for every kilogram of fish produced." If it takes 1.9 kilograms of wild fish to produce 1 kilogram of farmed fish (the farmed fish are eating the wild fish) then farming fish ultimately results in a net decrease of fish.

Think of it this way. All the fish in the world are a potential food source, whether they are farmed or wild caught. If we just catch the wild fish, we can catch 1.9 kilograms and all of that would be food for humans. But if we farm fish, we can produce 1 kilogram of farmed fish as food for humans, but only by using 1.9 kilograms of wild fish to feed the farmed fish. In both scenarios, we would be consuming the same amount of wild fish. But in the all wild-caught example we've got 1.9 kilograms of fish to feed to humans and in the farmed fish example we've only got 1 kilogram of fish to feed to humans. Thus, in the farmed fish scenario, to meet whatever demand humans have for fish as a food source, would require consuming more wild fish than would just using wild fish only as a food source.

Farming fish is basically taking 1.9 kg of fish and turning it into 1 kg of fish.

Food produced by the process of farming fish: 1 kg
Food consumed by the process of farming fish: 1.9 kg

1 kg - 1.9 kg = -0.9 kg

That -0.9 is the net amount of fish produced as a food source for humans from the process of farming fish. That's a net decrease!

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.