Some ornithologists believe that

Answer choices

1. A

   Opposite13% picked this

   It is used as evidence that various species of songbirds will continue to be

   It's counterevidence for the idea that songbirds are threatened. Reforestation = making more forest / replacing forest that has been lost. That's good for songbirds.

   13%
2. B

   Too Strong: rejected11% picked this

   It is presented as a claim that is rejected by ornithologists who present declining songbird populations

   The ornithologists aren't rejecting the idea that there's been reforestation, as this answer suggests. They're just saying, "despite that relative good thing, the forest problem is still getting worse for songbirds."

   11%
3. C

   Correct70% picked this

   It is presented as a phenomenon that is compatible with the ornithologists' claim that the threat to

   Why this is right

   This is language we could always use to describe it when an author concedes an opposing point. When an author acknowledges a possible objection, she's signaling, "I know what you're going to say. Yes, X is true. But .... that still doesn't change my mind. Here's why." Yes, there is some reforesting, but that doesn't change the fact that deforestation is continuing to worsen things for songbirds. Here's why. Compatible with = doesn't contradict This answer could certainly go a step farther than "compatible with" and say "a phenomenon that potentially undermines the ornithologists' claim", but they said "compatible with" to be weird and less appealing.

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

   70%
4. D

   Bad Conclusion Match3% picked this

   It is used as evidence that songbirds' predators will continue to have a habitat and so will continue to

   This answer says that one of the author's conclusions was that "songbirds' predators will continue to have a habitat", but the paragraph never said any such thing. In fact, the paragraph is suggesting that predators live in non-forested areas, which is why it's dangerous for songbirds when their nests get too close to non-forested areas. So it doesn't even make sense to say that adding in more forest is evidence for predators (who live in non-forested areas) having a continued habitat.

   3%
5. E

   Opposite3% picked this

   It is presented as evidence for the claim that songbirds' predators are threatened by extinction unless they have open spaces and corridors that

   It's not evidence, it's an opposing point. It's an acknowledged objection. And the author was never supporting a conclusion that "songbird predators are threatened by extinction unless X happens".

   3%