PT135 · S4 · Q1 When a forest is subject

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

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.

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

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.