Q16

[griffin.811]

Thought I'd drop an answer to this since it was tough for me.

In lines 5-10 we have "ecologists used to share CE's view that...HOWEVER they now believe..."

This indicates that they don't share Elton's view.

Simple, hind sight is always 20/20.

[ohthatpatrick]

Nicely done.

Yeah, I loathe this type of question stem. The answer choice could be wrong because it wasn't in psg. A or because it was in both passages.

(A) Not in A. Ecologists aren't JUST studying economic impact; they're definitely concerned with species diversity as well.

(B) Not in A. There isn't any discussion of what defines an ecosystem.

(C) Both passages. Even the author of psg. B, who thinks the fear of invasive species is overblown, acknowledges that introduced species CAN cause extinctions.

(D) Not in A. "only" is too extreme to match up with anything in Psg. A.

I was initially attracted to (D) and (E) because they both referenced Elton, and Elton is only discussed in Psg. A.

[bp0]

I had a question in regards to this question -I don't see how passage A asserts that Ecologist do not share Elton's view at all. Here is why

Charles Elton's view primarily states that disturbed habitats are most vulnerable to new arrivals because they contain few or less vigorous native species.
However, Ecologists realize that when humans introduce new species into existing Ecosystems, even pristine habitats are threatened.

Isn't it the exact same thing to say that people who introduce new species that destroy habitats and "new arrivals" destroy disturbed habitats. I mean aren't their views actually not mutually exclusive here? It never distinguishes between the fact that PEOPLE introduce them to new habitats vs new arrivals ruining the habitat in the answer. Therefore, the Ecologists views could actually agree with Elton - that perhaps disturbed habitats are vulnerable to new arrivals AND pristine ecosystems can be threatened by new arrivals introduced by people. Just because they, until now, where complacent in their view, doesn't mean that they have to take one or the other here.

Anybody got a rebuttal or am I missing anything here? Thank you.

[zee.brad]

I had a question in regards to this question -I don't see how passage A asserts that Ecologist do not share Elton's view at all. Here is why

Charles Elton's view primarily states that disturbed habitats are most vulnerable to new arrivals because they contain few or less vigorous native species.
However, Ecologists realize that when humans introduce new species into existing Ecosystems, even pristine habitats are threatened.

Isn't it the exact same thing to say that people who introduce new species that destroy habitats and "new arrivals" destroy disturbed habitats. I mean aren't their views actually not mutually exclusive here? It never distinguishes between the fact that PEOPLE introduce them to new habitats vs new arrivals ruining the habitat in the answer. Therefore, the Ecologists views could actually agree with Elton - that perhaps disturbed habitats are vulnerable to new arrivals AND pristine ecosystems can be threatened by new arrivals introduced by people. Just because they, until now, where complacent in their view, doesn't mean that they have to take one or the other here.

Anybody got a rebuttal or am I missing anything here? Thank you.

That's how I think about it,
CE's view: DISTURBED habitats are Most vulnerable to new arrivals.
Ecologist realize that: No, existing, pristine, species-rich habitats are threatened by arrivals.
So ecologist don't think DISTURBED habitats are Most(Primary) threatened by new arrivals, which is ans choice E

[jm.kahn]

Nicely done.

Yeah, I loathe this type of question stem. The answer choice could be wrong because it wasn't in psg. A or because it was in both passages.

(A) Not in A. Ecologists aren't JUST studying economic impact; they're definitely concerned with species diversity as well.

(B) Not in A. There isn't any discussion of what defines an ecosystem.

(C) Both passages. Even the author of psg. B, who thinks the fear of invasive species is overblown, acknowledges that introduced species CAN cause extinctions.

(D) Not in A. "only" is too extreme to match up with anything in Psg. A.

I was initially attracted to (D) and (E) because they both referenced Elton, and Elton is only discussed in Psg. A.

C doesn't seem to be asserted in the 2nd passage. The 2nd passage doesn't even mention ecologists so how can most ecologists who study introduced species can agree with C. Then, why is C not credited?

If you think it's asserted in passage-A, then C should be the correct answer.

Also, how can one conclude that C is asserted in passage-A? Passage-A says that Ecologists realize that species rich habitats are threatened due to invasive species. It later provides an example of how introduced species can cause extinction. But It doesn't say that "most ecologists" agree that introduced species can cause extinction. This would mean that C is not asserted in passage-A. Any expert who can clarify this?

[asafezrati]

Nicely done.

Yeah, I loathe this type of question stem. The answer choice could be wrong because it wasn't in psg. A or because it was in both passages.

(A) Not in A. Ecologists aren't JUST studying economic impact; they're definitely concerned with species diversity as well.

(B) Not in A. There isn't any discussion of what defines an ecosystem.

(C) Both passages. Even the author of psg. B, who thinks the fear of invasive species is overblown, acknowledges that introduced species CAN cause extinctions.

(D) Not in A. "only" is too extreme to match up with anything in Psg. A.

I was initially attracted to (D) and (E) because they both referenced Elton, and Elton is only discussed in Psg. A.

C doesn't seem to be asserted in the 2nd passage. The 2nd passage doesn't even mention ecologists so how can most ecologists who study introduced species can agree with C. Then, why is C not credited?

If you think it's asserted in passage-A, then C should be the correct answer.

Also, how can one conclude that C is asserted in passage-A? Passage-A says that Ecologists realize that species rich habitats are threatened due to invasive species. It later provides an example of how introduced species can cause extinction. But It doesn't say that "most ecologists" agree that introduced species can cause extinction. This would mean that C is not asserted in passage-A. Any expert who can clarify this?

Lines 39-43 describes something ecologists found, so yeah, they are mentioned. I dont know about the "most" part, because in both of the passages there isn't any qualification of their numbers. But anyway you look at it - it doesn't match what the question stem requires.

The way the first passage is written implies that the ecologists (again, it isn't known how many of them) actually do acknowledge the fact that introduced species can (a very weak and broad word) cause extinctions.

Regarding E -
The structure of the first paragraph of the first passage (opinion of CE, however..) implies that this issue can cause serious damage to all kinds of environments, so disturbed habitats are not special anymore in that sense.
The second passage doesnt mention a comparison between disturbed habitats and other habitats.

[aryehkln94]

Hey!
All passage A says is that now ecologist realize that new species can EVEN threaten pristine habitats. So how is E the correct answer? The passage is not now saying that disturbed habitats are not the primary threatened ones!?

Thx!

[snoopy]

Hey!
All passage A says is that now ecologist realize that new species can EVEN threaten pristine habitats. So how is E the correct answer? The passage is not now saying that disturbed habitats are not the primary threatened ones!?

Thx!

Line 4 says "many shared CE's view" because "disturbed habitats...contain fewer or less vigorous native species."

Then line 8 says "NOW, HOWEVER, ecologists realize...even pristine, species-rich habitats are threatened." The NOW, HOWEVER indicates that before, ecologists share CE's view. Now, they don't. That's why E is right.