Q23 - Biologists found that off

[ssfriend.88]

I took this exam in October, and was going over the whole section. I got the same wrong answer both times. I can see how (B) shows a connection between the two species, since they are both affected by a strain of bacteria. Why is (D) wrong?

(D) seems to showing how the drop in plankton population is directly increasing the death of the fish. Is the problem that the fish were already declining, so there's not really a common cause?

Thanks for the help.

[syousif3]

Ya id love to know why D is wrong as well

[fmuirhea]

(D) might help explain why the death rates for the fish are higher, but it does nothing to explain why the plankton are dying off. (B), as you noted, accounts for the declining rates of both affected groups.

[schmid215]

Don't treat this like a resolve the discrepancy question. That's what LSAC wants you to do.

[MayMay]

Don't treat this like a resolve the discrepancy question. That's what LSAC wants you to do.

why wouldn't it be a resolve the discrepancy question?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Good discussion so far. I'd like to join in here.

We should treat this as an Explain a Result question. We need an answer choice that helps to explain the biologists' findings, of which there is a lot to unpack.

First, the P-plankton population has dropped 10 percent.
Second, fish species X, Y, and Z are beginning to show very high death rates.
Third, biologists believe these two phenomena are related in some way.
Fourth, no other species in the ecosystem appear to be affected.
*note, that all of this is occurring locally off the northeast coast of a certain nation.

How can all of this be? Answer choice (B) provides an explanation for the phenomena and connects them back to the same issue--a new strain of bacteria. Now I wouldn't just find answer choice (B), instead, I'd work from wrong to right. Lets eliminate the wrong answers.

Incorrect Answers
(A) and (E) are issues that are too global in nature. We're talking about events locally occurring off the northeast coast of a certain country.
(C) doesn't help to explain how a 10 percent reduction P-plankton could have such a devastating impact on the fish species X, Y, and Z. Remember, these fish only occasionally eat P-plankton.
(D) doesn't explain the findings. Why are the fish starving in the first place?

Hope that helps!

[MayMay]

(D) doesn't explain the findings. Why are the fish starving in the first place?

Hope that helps!

hmm.. if we take this face value, do we need to even question why they're starving in the first place? can't we take it as fact that there is starvation, and that it's being amplified? wouldn't it then explain the stimulus?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

We do need to explain why the both the P-plankton population is declining and fish species X, Y, and Z are dying. The stimulus begins "biologists found..." -- that's a finding. And the question stem asks us to explain the biologists' findings.

[MayMay]

We do need to explain why the both the P-plankton population is declining and fish species X, Y, and Z are dying. The stimulus begins "biologists found..." -- that's a finding. And the question stem asks us to explain the biologists' findings.

!! makes a lot of sense!
If the stimulus didn't start off with that, and the question just asked us to explain the stimulus, do we need to explain p-plankton?
I guess my question is...
if in the stimulus we have 2 conditions, and the answer choice only addresses one of them, is it automatically out?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I would not say that such an answer choice is automatically out, but it would need to explain the two conditions. Sometimes there is fluff though around 2 apparently contradictory ideas--in such a case the correct answer need not address the fluff.

[kky215]

D is wrong because it is NOT corroborating this part of the stimulus "NO OTHER species in the ecosystem appear to be affected"

OK XYZ are all experiencing starvation "within the AFFECTED region" , BUT WHY aren't OTHER species unaffected?

This is one of the reasons why D is wrong

[ptewarie]

D is wrong because it is NOT corroborating this part of the stimulus "NO OTHER species in the ecosystem appear to be affected"

OK XYZ are all experiencing starvation "within the AFFECTED region" , BUT WHY aren't OTHER species unaffected?

This is one of the reasons why D is wrong

Yes. Also, D doesnt help us because it is just stating what the stimulus already tells it. It does not help explain anything. How can this resolve anything?

The stimulus says that Plankton is dying and X,Y,Z is dying ans asking us how this can be explained.

D is saying : X Y Z are dying and Plankton dying is making worse.

Sure, but it does not explain to us the paradox why X,Y,Z are dying in the first place. Restated evidence is not going to be a correct answer choice. Especially not in resolve paradox questions.

[matthew.mainen]

What's the difference between explain the result and resolve the discrepancy?

[tommywallach]

Nothing. : )

-t

[coco.wu1993]

The biologist found that the two phenomena are connected, while B shows that they in fact each independently result from a third cause. Does that constitute a connection? I (mistakenly) thought a connection should be a causal one.

[ohthatpatrick]

I think that you can say two things are 'connected' if they are both symptoms/effects of the same underlying cause.

On LSAT test day, Marcia experienced both a higher heart rate and sweaty palms. Were those two phenomena connected?

Yes, they were both the result of feeling stressed that she didn't study enough to do well.

However, I think the fact that you are even asking that question indicates that you had your mind geared towards EXPLAINING the wrong thing.

The question stem here asks us to explain the biologists' findings.

Can we consider "biologists believe the two phenomena are connected" to be one of the biologists' findings?

Findings, to me, are facts, not opinions/hypotheses/beliefs.

The first sentence uses the verb "to find", so biologists found that P-plankton is dropping. Additionally, they found that X, Y, and Z are experiencing high death rates.

(B) explains both of those findings.

I think you were thinking of this as a Strengthen the biologists' hypothesis task.

Hope this helps.

[henryma9]

I think that you can say two things are 'connected' if they are both symptoms/effects of the same underlying cause.

On LSAT test day, Marcia experienced both a higher heart rate and sweaty palms. Were those two phenomena connected?

Yes, they were both the result of feeling stressed that she didn't study enough to do well.

However, I think the fact that you are even asking that question indicates that you had your mind geared towards EXPLAINING the wrong thing.

The question stem here asks us to explain the biologists' findings.

Can we consider "biologists believe the two phenomena are connected" to be one of the biologists' findings?

Findings, to me, are facts, not opinions/hypotheses/beliefs.

The first sentence uses the verb "to find", so biologists found that P-plankton is dropping. Additionally, they found that X, Y, and Z are experiencing high death rates.

(B) explains both of those findings.

I think you were thinking of this as a Strengthen the biologists' hypothesis task.

Hope this helps.

I have to admit your explanation was quite clear but there is still a puzzle for me.

As stated in the context, "Since these species of fish are known to sometimes eat P-plankton, biologists believe the two phenomena are connected"
I thought I found the trap the examiner set when I read this sentence. I thought the point lay on the verb EAT. Because maybe there's not enough food sources for the fish and that is exact a cause and following sequence foe the high death rates occur to the fish. But I didn't see this or likely connection in any one of the options expect that I could catch a slight trace in C--- P-plankton was killed off and so did the fish die away. Could you explain why the biologist says this sentence?

Thanks so much!

[aescano209]

I think that you can say two things are 'connected' if they are both symptoms/effects of the same underlying cause.

On LSAT test day, Marcia experienced both a higher heart rate and sweaty palms. Were those two phenomena connected?

Yes, they were both the result of feeling stressed that she didn't study enough to do well.

However, I think the fact that you are even asking that question indicates that you had your mind geared towards EXPLAINING the wrong thing.

The question stem here asks us to explain the biologists' findings.

Can we consider "biologists believe the two phenomena are connected" to be one of the biologists' findings?

Findings, to me, are facts, not opinions/hypotheses/beliefs.

The first sentence uses the verb "to find", so biologists found that P-plankton is dropping. Additionally, they found that X, Y, and Z are experiencing high death rates.

(B) explains both of those findings.

I think you were thinking of this as a Strengthen the biologists' hypothesis task.

Hope this helps.

I have to admit your explanation was quite clear but there is still a puzzle for me.

As stated in the context, "Since these species of fish are known to sometimes eat P-plankton, biologists believe the two phenomena are connected"
I thought I found the trap the examiner set when I read this sentence. I thought the point lay on the verb EAT. Because maybe there's not enough food sources for the fish and that is exact a cause and following sequence foe the high death rates occur to the fish. But I didn't see this or likely connection in any one of the options expect that I could catch a slight trace in C--- P-plankton was killed off and so did the fish die away. Could you explain why the biologist says this sentence?

Thanks so much!

Hey, so I'm not an instructor but maybe I can answer your question. So if I am reading this correct you were thinking that part of the paradox was based around the verb 'eat'. I think that it was placed there by the writers to try to get someone to fall for an answer trap like C. If you thought that the fish species X, Y, and Z ate plankton primarily then sure if a powerful toxin, as in what answer choice C is saying, that is killing off the plankton which would lead to a wide food shortage for X, Y, Z. But be careful, notice that the writers put a qualifier word right before it by saying that they sometimes eat plankton. We don't necessarily know how often, maybe its twice a year or maybe its twice a week, we don't necessarily know so we can't say for sure that they rely primarily on the plankton for their diet. I thought this paradox was kind of interesting in that there was a kind of three things to the paradox. First, we have plankton dropping 10% recently. But we also have high death rates for X, Y, Z. So the biologists think these two are connected since 'sometimes' they eat the plankton. But the odd thing as well is no other species are affected. So, what we want to resolve is what is causing the plankton and XYZ to drop or die off, but the other species are not?

(A) doesn't really help. The stimulus says this has been happening recently, but the dumping has been going for several years. We would expect if it was the dumping to already be happening. Maybe one can say, oh maybe the effects of the dumping took long to happen. But even if, what effects specifically from the dumping are causing the plankton and XYZ to drop off but not other species? We still wouldn't know and this wouldn't explain the paradox.
(B) is correct. If some bacteria is destroying plankton and attacking respiratory systems in XYZ that would explain why both of these are dying off. Also, I thought this was kind of interesting about this answer choice. Regardless if you had thought that XYZ are dependent on plankton by 'eating' them it still resolves the paradox. For example, let's say they only ate them once a year (sometimes). The answer choice didn't say the bacteria had to be transferred via digestion or being eaten, it just says it attacks both of these things (maybe it attacks them by just swimming around in the water), so this would resolve the paradox. But even if we thought they relied on them as primary food source, eating them would still resolve it by showing that once they eat the plankton since they sometimes do, which means they probably will eventually eat it, then XYZ too will get the bacteria and die. Notice also, that this answer choice says it attacks plankton and specifially XYZ so this as well would explain why no other species are not dying off.
(C) ok sure. Maybe we can take this and say this is the reason why plankton are dying off, but why are XYZ dying off? They only sometimes eat it, so we can't say they're dying at a high rate because they no longer exist since they only ate them sometimes. The stimulus again never says that they were completely dependent on the plankton. This leaves open part of the paradox and thus can be eliminated.
(D) I thought starvation in this answer choice explained the XYZ phenomena. All we are told in the original stimulus is they are dying at high rates. Starvation could be an explanation of why they are dying. But this answer choice says that the decreased rates of plankton are increasing the death rate for XYZ even quicker, but...why are the plankton dying off too? We don't know so this answer choice too leaves open part of the paradox.
(E) ok global warming changed the conditions...so what? Did it change the conditions for the good or for the worse? We don't know and doesn't help explain the paradox. Eliminate.

Hopefully that helped, if at all, to explain your question. Let me know if this didn't clear it up.

[rose.1070]

Wanted to chime in because I think D is a better answer than B. I actually chose B on my PT, but D after blind reviewing.

Question Stem: Explain the biologists' findings.

So, what exactly are the biologists' findings?
1.) P-plankton population recently dropped by 10 percent.
2.) Fish species X, Y, Z are beginning to show extraordinarily high death rates in the region.
Now remember, these are the only actual findings of the biologist.

Additional Information:
All three of these fish species are known to sometimes eat P-plankton, so the biologists think the two phenomena might be connected in some way. No other species in the area appear to be affected.


B.) First off, this answer choice never mentions that the strain of bacteria is fatal. We have no idea if it is fatal, what if the fish and the P-plankton can naturally fight off the infection, just as humans can fight off a whole range of bacterial infections?

Second, even if we assume it is fatal, it doesn't necessarily explain why the fish species are showing extraordinarily high death rates, especially considering the P-plankton population only declined by 10 percent (we have no indication that 10 percent is extraordinarily high).

So, where in this answer choice does it indicate that the bacterial infection is deadly, and where does it indicate that it is deadly enough to inflict that much damage to the overall population of the species?

If someone asked me why I didn't go to the basketball game, I could respond by saying my car was low on gas. Is it an awful explanation? No. Is that enough to explain why I didn't go? Absolutely not. It could have been enough gas to get me to the game, I could have taken a taxi to the game, etc. That's what (B) sounds like. If (B) was on an island by itself, then I'd pick it 100/100 times. We think it is on an island until we arrive to answer choice (D)...


D.) Remember, the biologists' findings are the abnormal death rates of the species. Well, this answer choice says widespread starvation is the reason why the fish are dying at such high rates. This is a perfectly acceptable answer to the findings of the fish. We do not need to know why they are starving, we only need to know why they are dying. Starvation clearly explains why they are dying. Figuring out why they are starving is unnecessary especially since once we find that out, then we will be on a never ending chain of finding the root cause.

So, how about the P-plankton? Well, the stimulus says that the fish sometimes feed on the P-plankton. There is good reason to believe that if they are starving (maybe there is a new physical barrier installed preventing these fish from accessing their primary food source), that they would then feed on the P-plankton, which would explain why the P-plankton's population is decreasing as well.


As a Biology major, I admit that a "new bacterial strain" sounds sexy as a potential explanation. But my first question would be whether or not this strain is even that harmful, or harmful enough to cause that big of a population decline. (D) is a safe answer, especially since it incorporates the biologists' own speculation about how the fish eat the plankton.

[aznpersazn]

B.) First off, this answer choice never mentions that the strain of bacteria is fatal. We have no idea if it is fatal, what if the fish and the P-plankton can naturally fight off the infection, just as humans can fight off a whole range of bacterial infections?

Second, even if we assume it is fatal, it doesn't necessarily explain why the fish species are showing extraordinarily high death rates, especially considering the P-plankton population only declined by 10 percent (we have no indication that 10 percent is extraordinarily high).

So, where in this answer choice does it indicate that the bacterial infection is deadly, and where does it indicate that it is deadly enough to inflict that much damage to the overall population of the species?

I initially found the "fatal" argument attractive, and I agree that B does not indicate that the new strain is particularly deadly. However, the same logic can be applied to answer choice D. D does not state that widespread starvation will result in death. Humans and other animals starve all the time, and there are many instances where they are able return to good health with the proper nutrition.

In this question, it would be reasonable to make the leap that starvation leads to dying, but if you're going to make that leap, why not make the same one for B as well? If in D starvation --> dying, then in B attacking respiratory systems --> dying. The question stem asks you to explain the biologists' findings of fish deaths, and either option could arguably help explain it. In all honesty, if we were weighing which one is more likely to be fatal - I would even go so far as to say that attacking the respiratory system is more detrimental to fish than starvation is.

More importantly - I think that B is the safer answer because during the LSAT we're not being asked to compare two attractive answers and argue which one is better. Instead, we're asked to find the answer choice that best conforms with the stimulus and the question stem. rose.1070 succinctly summarizes the stimulus and stem below, and I'd like to reiterate some of the posters above by analyzing the answer choices as they relate to the stimulus.

Question Stem: Explain the biologists' findings.

Answer Choice B:
1.) P-plankton population recently dropped by 10 percent. - Yes, B helps explain this - destroys cell walls.
2.) Fish species X, Y, Z are beginning to show extraordinarily high death rates in the region. - Yes, B helps explain this - attack respiratory system

Remember, we're not asked to definitely prove anything at all, we're simply asked to choose which one helps to explain.

All three of these fish species are known to sometimes eat P-plankton, so the biologists think the two phenomena might be connected in some way. No other species in the area appear to be affected. Yes, despite not being explicitly stated as a finding, B addresses this by only listing the effects on the plankton and the fish.

Answer Choice D:
1.) P-plankton population recently dropped by 10 percent. - No. D does not explain the loss of plankton at all. It is only reiterating the observation that there is, in fact, a loss.
2.) Fish species X, Y, Z are beginning to show extraordinarily high death rates in the region. - Yes, D somewhat explains this, if you assume (as above) that starvation could lead to death.

All three of these fish species are known to sometimes eat P-plankton, so the biologists think the two phenomena might be connected in some way. No other species in the area appear to be affected. - Sure, D doesn't specifically address any other species, which makes this portion of the stimulus equally as attractive as B.

However, B hits more of the stimulus than D does, which is why I think it's the safer, and superior answer.