Purple Loosestrife

Answer choices

1. A

   Unsupported: directly counters8% picked this

   Passage A presents evidence that directly counters claims made in

   Passage A presented evidence such as this: - more than 50% of biomass has been displaced by PL - impact on wildlife haven't been well studied (but serious reductions in waterfowl and aquatic furbearer have been observed) - several endangered species are threatened with further degradation of breeding habitat Passage B acknowledges that the purple loosestrife literature, scientific and otherwise, dutifully discusses the impacts of the weed on endangered species -- and on threatened biodiversity more generally. This basically refers back to Passage A's evidence. Does passage B say those claims are untrue? No, she says, regardless of the perceived and actual ecological effects .... Which means, "I'm not going to even talk about the perceived/actual effects of the purple invader". She just wants to talk about the disingenuous narrative of "liberating nature from PL", when she thinks the movement originated as an instrument to control nature in order to satisfy the wishes of humans who hunt game birds.

   8%
2. B

   Opposite3% picked this

   Passage B assumes what passage A explicitly

   This makes it seem like the two passages are fundamentally aligned / sympathetic. But the opposite is true. Passage A is sounding the ecological alarm over PL, and Passage B is saying, "Chillax. You're just mad that PL is dominating because of your own desire to have these wetlands the way you want them. There's no strong evidence this is harming anything other than your conception of how this habitat should be."

   3%
3. C

   Correct84% picked this

   Passage B displays an awareness of the arguments touched on in passage A, but

   Why this is right

   Passage B almost feels like a response to Passage A, and other "hysterical warnings" like it. Passage B displays an awareness of passage A throughout its first paragraph, summarizing the arguments / evidence that Passage A put forth to convince us we should be concerned about PL. But passage A never displays an awareness of this counterargument that, "Y'all want to get rid of PL because it was messing up your ability to hunt birds, which then gets in the way of businesses that make money via hunting / trapping / recreation revenues".

   Skill tested: Method · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

   84%
4. D

   Reversed2% picked this

   Passage B advocates a policy that passage

   Passage B doesn't advocate any policy, unless we interpret the implicit main point of, "Chill out about loosestrife, y'all, or at least be more honest about why you're worried about it", to be a policy. But that's stretching the limits of saying that Passage B ever advocated a policy. This answer seems to be really testing a reversed relationship. Passage A advocates a policy: with the spread of PL growing exponentially, some form of integrated control is needed. And Passage B rejects that notion.

   2%
5. E

   Reversed3% picked this

   Passage A downplays the seriousness of claims made in

   Passage B downplays the seriousness of the claims made in Passage A.

   3%