Some species are called “indicator species”

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Description2% picked this

   Environmentalists sometimes overreact to the loss of a

   The argument is not about overreaction — it is about misinterpretation. The author warns environmentalists not to attribute every population loss to pollution, not that they overreact when they do. The conclusion is about the interpretive mistake, not the emotional intensity of the response.

   2%
2. B

   Correct85% picked this

   The loss of a specific population should not always be interpreted as a sign

   Why this is right

   This is the main conclusion. The author's point is exactly that population loss should not always be read as environmental degradation — sometimes it is natural ecosystem evolution. The premises (sometimes natural, change is the status quo) all build to this very claim. The hedge "should not always" matches the argument's precise stance: not "never," just "not always."

   Skill tested: Main Conclusion · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   85%
3. C

   Bad Description6% picked this

   Environmentalists’ use of indicator species in tracking the effects of pollution

   The argument does not say that using indicator species is "often problematic." It says environmentalists would be misguided to attribute population losses to pollution in all cases — that is a narrower point. The use of indicator species can still be valuable; the warning is about how to interpret the signals, not whether the practice itself is problematic.

   6%
4. D

   Premise3% picked this

   The loss of a specific population is often the result of natural changes in an ecosystem and in such

   The first half ("loss is often the result of natural changes") is one of the premises supporting the conclusion. The second half ("should not be resisted") goes beyond the argument — the author never recommends not resisting population losses. The argument is about interpretation, not about whether to act. So this is a premise plus an unsupported addition.

   3%
5. E

   Bad Description3% picked this

   The loss of a specific population as a result of pollution is simply part of

   The argument says natural change, not pollution-caused population loss, is part of nature's status quo. This answer flips the relationship — claiming pollution-caused population losses are part of nature's status quo. The author never says that, and it is the opposite of the warning being issued.

   3%