When a forest is subject

Answer choices

1. A

   No Distinction4% picked this

   Soil in which calcium levels are significantly diminished by acid rain is also likely to be damaged in

   Since this isn't pointing us to any difference between sugar maples and spruces / firs, it's not going to do us any good.

   4%
2. B

   Deepens Paradox / Opposite5% picked this

   Sugar maples that do not receive enough calcium deteriorate less rapidly than spruces or firs that do

   This makes the paradox even more confusing. We're trying to explain why acid rain seems to damage sugar maples more than it does spruces / firs. We know that acid rain causes calcium to decline and all three tree types need calcium. This answer makes it sound like sugar maples can better tolerate calcium depletion than can spruces / firs. If this answer said "deteriorate more rapidly", it would be fine as a correct answer.

   5%
3. C

   Correct86% picked this

   Spruces and firs, unlike sugar maples, can extract calcium from a mineral compound that is common in soil and is

   Why this is right

   This provides a distinction between sugar maples and spruces / firs, and this distinction helps us understand why sugar maples get hurt more by acid rain than spruces / firs do. All three types need calcium, and the acid rain removes calcium from the soil. But spruces and firs can extract calcium from something in the ground that isn't affected by acid rain. Meanwhile, sugar maples do not have that capability, so when the acid rain comes and destroys some of the calcium in the soil, they suffer from calcium deficiencies.

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

   86%
4. D

   No Distinction2% picked this

   Sugar maples require more calcium in the spring and summer than they do in the

   Since this isn't pointing us to any difference between sugar maples and spruces / firs, it's not going to do us any good.

   2%
5. E

   No Impact / Opposite, if anything4% picked this

   Unlike spruces or firs, most sugar maples are native to areas that receive a lot

   This does provide a distinction, but it doesn't help with our paradox. This says that most sugar maples are native to areas that get a lot of acid rain. Most spruces and firs are not native to areas that get a lot of acid rain. But the stimulus is talking about "forests that do receive significant acid rain", and comparing how sugar maples / spruces / firs seem to be affected by that acid rain. So even though most spruces and firs aren't native to areas with lots of acid rain, some are. After all, the stimulus is looking at a forest that has sugar maples, spruces, and firs, and this forest gets significant acid rain. We can't say that "spruces and firs are less affected than are sugar maples by the significant acid rain in this forest where they all live" because "spruces and firs aren't usually found in areas with lots of acid rain". If anything, the fact that sugar maples are more often found near acid rain could mean that sugar maples as a species may have adaptations that help them better cope with acid rain. And that would actually go in the opposite direction of what we're trying to explain.

   4%