Q19

[hychu3]

Hi,

Can someone explain how (C) and (D) are different?

Thanks.

[ohthatpatrick]

Sure thing.

Let's compare what each says about psg A

(C) evid. that a part phenom is widely considered to be undesirable
vs.
(D) warns about the dangers of a particular phenomenon

Is there a difference there?

Yes. (C) claims that psg. A reports on what is "widely considered" bad. (D) claims that psg. A argues that something is bad.

We could look back to psg A and ask ourselves, "was psg A just speaking for itself, as (D) says, or did it ever make any reference to what "most people" think - i.e. 'widely considered'?"

I can find line references to make peace with either answer.

Lines 8-10 seem to fit (C)'s notion that invasive species are 'widely considered' bad (if we accept that modern ecologists represent a 'widely considered' view).

Lines 11-13 definitely speak from the author's voice and warn about the danger of a phenomenon.

How do (C) and (D) differ in terms of how they refer to psg B?

(C) presents evid. that the phenom. is usually considered beneficial
vs.
(D) argues that the phenom. should not generally be considered dangerous

Is there a difference there?

Yes, (C) accuses psg B of saying that invasive species are "usually considered" beneficial, while (D) says psg B says that invasive species are generally not dangerous.

(C) makes a stronger statement than (D). If invasive species are usually beneficial, than (D) is also true, they're usually not dangerous.

They can't both be right, so this already makes (C) the loser. If you try to find any line reference about invasive species being 'beneficial', you can't.

Psg B is just saying "calm down, alarmists ... invasive species aren't going to ruin the planet" ... psg B is NOT saying "you have it backwards, alarmists ... invasive species are usually BETTER than native species".

Hope this helps.

[ttunden]

C is pretty strong compared to D. the 1st half of C you can kinda make an argument for but the 2nd half of C is where it errs. This is the part that is too strong/extreme. The author of passage B just says it should not be considered bad(not destroying/transforming) He never says that it is usually good/great for the environment.

That is why D is better. Its softer and corresponds better.

[hanhansummer]

I choose C even notice that C is stronger than D, because I find in line 37 the author B says "it is a positive-sum game, in which ecosystem can accept more and more species", and I consider it justify "benefit" in C.

[Wenjin]

There are places in passage B talk about the benefits of invasive species: line 41-43, for example says “if you add many new species and lose few or nonnative species, the overall species count goes up.” Line 34 also gives me this impression that the author of passage B think invasive species brings positive changes: “species invasion is not a zero-sum game…rather…it is a positive-sum game.”