October LSAT LR 23 - Biologists and fish Forum

[JohnWycliffe]

The 23rd question on one of the LSATs: the one relating to biologists and fish.

Why is B a better answer than D?

Both show a connection between the deaths of the fish and the death of plankton -

B shows that the two have the same cause (a strain of virus)

D shows that the death rate of plankton exacerbates the death rate of fish all of whom are already starving.

What's more - D makes use of the "since the fish are known to eat the plankton" finding of the scientists in more obvious way. The strain of bacteria does not have to be transmitted from fish to plankton.

Why is B better than D?

[Clarity]

The 23rd question on one of the LSATs: the one relating to biologists and fish.

Why is B a better answer than D?

Both show a connection between the deaths of the fish and the death of plankton -

B shows that the two have the same cause (a strain of virus)

D shows that the death rate of plankton exacerbates the death rate of fish all of whom are already starving.

What's more - D makes use of the "since the fish are known to eat the plankton" finding of the scientists in more obvious way. The strain of bacteria does not have to be transmitted from fish to plankton.

Why is B better than D?

This is my take on it...but I bombed October so take it with a grain of salt.

The biologist has found that plankton population has dropped and fish are dying. Biologist believe these two phenomenons are connected.

B explains directly why both the plankton and the fish are dying plus it draws a direct connection (the same bacteria).

With D it states that the fish are experiencing widespread starvation. Then it goes on to add that the decrease in plankton is making it worse. It does nothing to explain why the fish are experiencing starvation in the first place. This answer choice also does not explain why there is a decrease in the plankton population. There is a connection established with this answer but it is one established after the decrease in plankton and the widespread starvation.

[armysgt]

Is the most recent LSAT? as in PT 67?

If that's the case, I can't help you unless you pm me with the question since I don't have access to the questions...although the poster above probably got it down for you

[Gustave]

I just took this as a pt and missed this question as well. B was a strong contender, but the strain of bacteria would clearly be an affected species. How can this be TCR? Are we to presume that most test takers don't know that bacteria are alive?

[Jeffort]

I just took this as a pt and missed this question as well. B was a strong contender, but the strain of bacteria would clearly be an affected species. How can this be TCR? Are we to presume that most test takers don't know that bacteria are alive?

Huh? The last sentence tells you that no other species are affected so the increased death rates doesn't apply to bacteria or anything other than the fish and the plankton.

I don't understand your reasoning as to why you are talking about the bacteria being alive and presuming they are, what does that have to do with answer choice B?

The explanation Clarity gave above is perfect. B tells you what the common cause is for the increase death rates of both the fish and the plankton. The scientists believe there is a connection between the deaths, meaning they think there is a common cause, and the question stem asks you to explain why think that is true. Answer choice (B) tells us they are right, there is something in common with the fish and plankton that can cause death, it is the new bacteria that could be responsible for both the increased deaths of the fish and plankton.

(D) doesn't give us a common cause for the increased deaths of both species, it just tells us about a cause for fish deaths, starvation, and that less bacteria to eat is making the already increasing death rate worse due to that additional cause. It doesn't tell us what is originally causing the fish to starve, just that less bacteria is contributing more to the already increasing death rate. It doesn't give us any cause for the decline in plankton, let alone one that is in common with the fish deaths.

For others, this is from PT67 october 2012, first LR section #23

[Gustave]

I just took this as a pt and missed this question as well. B was a strong contender, but the strain of bacteria would clearly be an affected species. How can this be TCR? Are we to presume that most test takers don't know that bacteria are alive?

Huh? The last sentence tells you that no other species are affected so the increased death rates doesn't apply to bacteria or anything other than the fish and the plankton.

Right, there's just something wonky about saying no other species is affected, and then stating that a strain of bacteria is the cause. That bacteria is a species, and clearly it would be effected. Increased prevalence as it spreads among the population, followed by a drop in potential hosts. I honestly crossed it out because, to me, "no other species are effected" ruled out a bacterial cause.

[KingofSplitters55]

Necromancy is at work here!