LSAT 153, Section 1, RC Passage 2, Fish Farming

RC Passage 2 Explanation

PASSAGE TEXT: A recent worldwide decline of ocean fishery stocks has stimulated rapid growth in …

Paragraph Summaries

1. Fish farming has grown quickly as wild fish stocks have declined. It may help supply human food, but there’s little evidence that it will restore wild fish populations, and it may even contribute to their decline.
2. Intensive fish farming can harm wild fisheries through pollution, disease, escaped nonnative species, and habitat damage. High-density production can therefore damage the same ocean resources it’s supposed to relieve.
3. Many farmed fish require fish meal and fish oil made from wild fish. Some farmed species produce more fish than they consume, but carnivorous fish like salmon can require far more wild fish than they produce.
4. Fish farming can reduce pressure on wild stocks by lowering prices and providing substitutes for ocean fish. But demand for wild-caught fish can remain high because niche markets develop for them.

Analysis

The author telegraphs the thesis at the end of paragraph one: fish farming is both a possible solution and a potential contributing factor to the decline of wild fisheries.

That’s the main point, and Question 7 tests it. Make sure your answer captures both sides of the paradox, not just one.

There are two problems and one partial benefit.

Note that paragraph 3 opens with “even more important”. The author is explicitly ranking the fish-meal problem above the pollution problem. Students often fixate on paragraph 2 because it comes first and has vivid language (pathogens, habitat destruction, escaped species). But the passage is telling you what to prioritize. This also matters for Question 14, which asks specifically about pollution: the answer has to stay within what the passage actually says about it, which is less than you might assume.

The fish-meal issue takes a moment to understand. Why do farmed fish need wild fish as feed? The passage explains that many species require fatty acids and amino acids (like lysine and methionine) that vegetable matter can’t adequately supply. So you have to feed them wild fish. For carnivorous species like salmon, this means fish farming actually consumes wild fish rather than sparing them. This is the core of what several questions are asking about.

The final paragraph is structurally interesting. It seems like it’s going to rescue fish farming since more farmed salmon lowers prices and deters fishing fleets; tilapia and catfish substitute for cod and haddock. But then the author pulls the rug: niche markets for wild-caught fish have emerged, meaning some consumers specifically want the wild version even when farmed alternatives exist. The expected relief on wild stocks doesn’t fully materialize. Question 12 comes out of this paragraph. The author believes market forces can cut both ways, either discouraging or (through niche demand) sustaining overfishing.

The author’s position is skeptical but measured. The language is careful throughout: “potential,” “possible,” “little if any evidence.” The author isn’t saying fish farming is a disaster. They’re pushing back on the optimists who claim it will restore wild populations. Watch for answers that overstate the author’s certainty in either direction.