***
This Reading Comprehension question is from the June 2004 LSAT.
Let's recall the paragraph summaries we wrote down last time:
Paragraph 1: Knowledge/regulation lags in oil industry
Paragraph 2: Regulation lagged in mid-19th century
Paragraph 3: Groundwater contamination a problem
Paragraph 4: Knowledge to protect groundwater is lacking
The first 2 paragraph summaries are especially helpful here. The author repeatedly says that regulation lags behind the oil industry and doesn't address risks proactively. So, as a pre-phrase, we can say that the author's attitude toward oil well drilling regulations is something like "They won't address problems until they've already occurred." We see right away that this fits C very well, since both mention regulation not being proactive. Let's go through the other choices quickly:
A) Outside the passage's scope, since it never mentions international concern as a force that affects oil-related regulation.
B) The opposite of what we want. The author's far from "satisfied," as our paragraph summaries make clear. He thinks regulation moves too slowly to counter dangers and thinks it should expand more quickly, not that existing regulation's enough.
C) Correct.
D) Wrong for the same reason as B. He's not "optimistic" at all...the summaries make clear he's concerned that regulation moves too slowly.
E) Wrong for the same reason as B and D. He's not "confident," he's worried about regulation lagging the pace of oil industry changes.
Remember:
1) Use paragraph summaries to identify, among other things, the author's attitude, about which the LSAT often asks. Pre-phrase to save time when there's a definite answer, as there was here.
2) Eliminate answers that are outside of the passage's scope or are the opposite of the answer we're looking for. These two simple categories can eliminate all wrong answers, usually.
What level of difficulty is this question?
ReplyDeleteCool blog.
ReplyDeleteI chose C based on similar reasoning.
When I do miss questions like this, it is almost always after I've narrowed the field down to 2 possible choices, and I end up picking the wrong one of the two.
There often seems to be a second best answer that could be reasonably defended as true (if not necessarily the best answer).
In this case, in paragraph 60, an accident did lead to international concern and calls for regulation so I don't see how it can be entirely ruled out as being beyond the "scope" of the written piece.
If I can learn to always pick the best of my final 2 candidates I think I'll be testing in the 170s.
Will continue to follow your blog. Cheers.