Between June 1987 and May 1988, the bodies of at least 740 bottlenose dolphins out of a total coastal population of 3,000 to 5,000 washed ashore on the Atlantic coast of the United States. █████ ████ ██ ███ ████ ███████ █████ ██████ ███████ ███ ███████ ████████ ███ ██████████ ██████ ███████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ██████████ █████ ███
Phenomenon ·Almost a thousand dolphins washed ashore dead
Presumably many more died and didn't wash ashore. What caused this?
Unusual bloom of P. brevis resulted in toxin accumulation in fish which was then eaten by dolphin. Dolphins then metabolized blubber which reduced their buoyancy and insulation and released synthetic pollutants (PCBs). This provided opportunity for bacterial infection which ultimately caused death.
Critique ·No die-off in Gulf of Mexico; timing and location mismatch; brevetoxin effects unknown
Red tides are common in Gulf of Mexico but no dolphin die-off there; dolphins began dying in the north in June yet red tide bloomed in the south in October; effects of brevetoxin on dolphins are unknown.
Alternative Hypothesis ·Exposure to synthetic pollutants
Sudden influx of pollutants triggered a cascade of problems in dolphins already heavily laden with PCB poisoning which is known to include symptoms like impaired immune system, impaired liver function, and skin lesions, all of which were observed.
Passage Style
Critique or debate
Phenomenon-hypothesis
16.
Which one of the following ██ ████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ████████ █████████ ██ ███ █████ ██████████
Question Type
RC analogy
First, we need to know what “approach” the author took with the research in P3. She doesn’t actually comment on that research until P4, where she weakens the researchers’ causal hypothesis in classic fashion by adding new information that brings the hypothesized cause-effect relationship into question. We can have the supposed cause (brevetoxin) and yet not have the effect (dolphin die-off). We can have the effect and yet not have the supposed cause. And we don’t know what the true effects of the supposed cause even are. We’re looking for something analogous to this: calling an argument into question by adding new info to weaken a cause-effect relationship.
This is good high-level analogy for how the author treats the research laid out in P3. She doesn’t challenge any of the data presented by the researchers, but in P4, she calls their conclusion into question (by weakening the cause-effect relationship proposed by the researchers).
b
An astronomer provides ██████████ ████████████ ██ ███████ ███████ ████████████ ███████
This describes adding new information to support an existing theory. But the author doesn’t support the researchers’ theory—she adds observations that weaken their theory.
This is analogous to revising a theory by subbing in updated evidence. But the author doesn’t try to revise the researchers’ brevetoxin theory by updating the evidence for the that theory. Rather, she weakens their theory before presenting a competing theory.
d
A doctor prescribes ██████████ ███ █ ███████ █████ ███████ ███ ████████████ ██ ███████ ███████
This describes recommending a solution to a problem, when that problem was previously incorrectly identified by someone else. But the author doesn’t recommend any solutions—she just questions the researchers’ hypothesis before offering an alternative hypothesis. (D) would be a better analogy if it were just about a doctor questioning or rejecting another doctor’s diagnosis.
This describes replicating famous past research. But the author doesn’t try to replicate what the dolphin researchers did. She accepts their observations and then rejects their theory about what those observations mean.
Difficulty
65% of people who answer get this correct
This is a difficult question.
It is similar in difficulty to other questions in this passage.
CURVE
Score of students with a 50% chance of getting this right
25%143
158
75%173
Analysis
RC analogy
Critique or debate
Phenomenon-hypothesis
Science
Answer Popularity
PopularityAvg. score
a
65%
168
b
16%
164
c
4%
161
d
15%
165
e
1%
159
Question history
You don't have any history with this question.. yet!
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.