Q9

[LSAT-Chang]

I have an issue with answer choice (B) here in that, I did choose it because it was the "best" among the 5, but I don't see any support of it from Passage B. All we get is lines 54-56 where it says "barite may impact some organisms, particularly scallops, and the mineral oil may have toxic effects" -- how can we ever infer stuff about humans when it doesn't even mention it?? The answer choice literally says "it can be consumed safely by humans" -- the passage may have just not mentioned the fact that it is unsafe to consume by humans but just gave emphasis on scallops. Does this make sense? I thought it was a stretch... any thoughts???

[timmydoeslsat]

Note the question stem. This stem tells us to pick an answer choice that can be inferred from both, but not from either one by itself.

Your question essentially tells you that this choice is correct. Passage B tells us that barite can be harmful to marine organisms, but Passage B does not tell us of it being edible by humans. Passage A does that. Passage A does not tell us of barite being harmful to marine organisms either.

[shivalika2007]

I don't understand why A isn't the right choice. I was between A/B and I chose A because passage A states that Barite is the largest ingredient of drilling muds and passage B states that "Barites may impact some organism..."

[maryadkins]

Nice explanation, timmydoeslsat.

(A) is incorrect because while the first part is supported by Passage A (lines 14-15), the second part is not supported by either passage. Just b/c Barite can be harmful doesn't mean it is the "most" damaging. It's a degree issue.

Is that clearer?

[zip]

I see why B is the best, but this is a " most supported as opposed to a straight deductive inference. We know people eat it commonly, and we know that it may impact some organisms (lines 54-56). But I'm not sure we can deduce that it is safe, and saying that it may have an impact is not equivalent to saying it can be harmful. "May" is subjunctive and speculative in a way "can" is not. It may be the case sunscreen causes cancer--who knows it may-- but I can't validly infer from that that it can. This kind of question stem requires somewhat more relaxed standards than a must be true. I find these somewhat hard because I don't have the iron assurance that I have chosen the correct answer. POE really helps me feel more confident though, and the LSAT gave us real crap alternatives in the other 4 choices.

[lsat2016]

Help? I don't understand how B is inferable from the passages.

[maryadkins]

The last half of the second paragraph of Passage A tells you that barite is used as an inert filler in foods and that it's used medically as a meal. This means it is safe for consumption by humans (or it wouldn't make sense).

The second passage in line 54 states that it may be harmful to some organisms, particularly scallops, which are marine life.

This is the only answer choice that answers the question in that each of these parts must be inferred from only one of the passages, not the other.

[civnetn]

The second passage in line 54 states that it may be harmful to some organisms, particularly scallops, which are marine life.

I really hate when forum members aren't entirely accurate in what they say . I understand that this is the most acceptable answer, but let's not fudge the truth. The passage DOES NOT SAY that barite is "harmful" to some organisms. It says it "Barite may impact."

And an impact can be either positive or negative. I'm sure that's what confused a lot of people for this question, so fudging the truth and saying the passage claims barite "harms," some organisms, isn't doing anyone any favors.

[wxpttbh]

Why not D? Is it because Passage A does not mean to it?

[ohthatpatrick]

How would you support (D)? What line references were you using to pick that answer?

I'm seeing Psg B provide no support for the idea that drilling needs to be MORE tightly controlled. It says in line 35 that the drilling discharges are tightly regulated. There is no cautionary wording anywhere in B that we're not doing enough.

And in Psg. A, I'm seeing NO mention whatsoever of regulation.

If you were thinking that we could pick up that sort of idea from the gist of Psg A's last paragraph, you can generally expect much more explicit support. Yes, the author of Psg A MIGHT want more tight regulation since it's currently problematic to study the effects of discharges, but there's nothing on the page we can point to that looks like Psg A wants "tighter control by the government".

[kkate]

Can anyone kindly walk me through their approach for this type of question?

My process was to first eliminate ones that are either fully supported or unsupported by either passage (eliminated all except B), then to confirm B, I checked to see if B is partially supported, but not fully, by both passages (passage A mentioned barium meal, which supports the latter part of B, then I checked if the first part of B can be supported by Passage B [line 55])

Not sure if this is the most efficient process. Would love to know how you guys tackled this. Thank you!

[ohthatpatrick]

Sure,

Step 1. Throw up in your brain, because WTF is this question stem?
Step 2. Adapt to this awful task exactly as you suggested.

It sounds like you, as I was, are worried you'll be seeing this type of question again. As far as I know, in the 20 Comparative passages that exist, this is the only example of this gnarly "supported by neither independently but supported by both together" type.

Seemingly, "Unsupported by the totality of what I've read" would be the easiest to recognize, so that would be my first pass.

Anything that felt supported by the totality of what I'd read would then need to be carved up into, "Only in one", "In both", or "Needs both".

1st pass
(A) "largest" is extreme but psg A did make this claim ... "MOST environmentally damaging" would have had to be psg B, but it doesn't say anything that extreme. Eliminate.

(B) Feels kinda true. Bad for scallops, but used before an x-ray.

(C) Don't think "land-based drilling" was ever mentioned? Make a quick check and then eliminate.

(D) Maybe.

(E) This type of language means they're testing whether the passage ever told us "offshore drilling is harmful to the environment because of the cuttings".

Maybe, but less enticing.

2nd pass
(B) Looks pretty good, since scallops (marine organisms) was in psg B and x-ray prep (humans) was in psg A. Might just go with this now, under time constraints.

(D) Psg A definitely never got as preachy as "the govt needs to do more". Did psg B?
No, actually they're both pretty descriptive and neutral throughout. Eliminate.

(E) Looking for stuff about "cuttings" and "environmental damage". Found lines 31-34, and see that "cuttings" ARE among the discharges that are "the main environmental concern in offshore oil production". So psg B could probably support (E), but it doesn't seem like (E) is needing anything from psg A. Eliminate

Hope this helps