Self-study
Letter to the editor: Conclusion Your article was unjustified in criticizing environmentalists for claiming that more wolves on Vancouver Island are killed by hunters than are born each year. ███ ██████ ████ ████ █████ ███ █████████ ██ ██████ ███████ ████ ████████ ████ ███ █████ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ █████████ ██████ ███ ████████ ███████ ████████ ███ ██ ██████ ███ ███ ██████ ██ ███████ ███ ███ ████ █████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ██ ████ ████ ███████████ █████████████████ ████ ████ ███████████ ███ ██████ ████ ███ █████████ ██████ ████ ██████████ ███ ██ ██████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The letter to the editor supports environmentalists after an article criticized their claims, calling that article’s criticism unjustified. The author claims the environmentalists were correct in claiming that that more wolves on Vancouver Island are killed by hunters than are born annually, even though the population has stayed constant. The reason the criticism is unjustified is because it does not recognize that environmentalists have been introducing new wolves over the past 20 years. (This would make population constancy an inaccurate representation of birth rates.)
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the author’s evaluation of the article’s claims: “Your article was unjustified in criticizing environmentalists for claiming that more wolves on Vancouver Island are killed by hunters than are born each year.”
8.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ███████
a
Environmentalists have been ████████████ ███████████ ███ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██████ ███ ██ ██████
This is evidence that shows why the wolf population remains constant. The author presents this explanation to show that the environmentalists’ claims about birth and hunting rates could still be accurate.
b
As many wolves ██ █████████ ██████ ███ ██████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ████ █████
This is the claim discussed in the context. The editor criticizes it, and the author concludes that the criticism of the claim is unjustified.
c
The population of ██████ ██ █████████ ██████ ██████ ██ ██████████ ██ ██████ ████████ ███ ██████ ██████ ██ ███████ ████ ████ ██ ███████████ ███ ██████ ████ ███ ███████████
The stimulus does not conclude how the wolf population should be maintained. It uses how it is currently being maintained as evidence for the conclusion, which centers on the justification of criticism.
d
The recent studies ██████████ ████ ███ █████ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ █████████ ██████ ███ ████████ ███████ ████████ ███ ██ █████ ████ ███████
This is inaccurate. The author does not claim that the studies that show the population remaining constant are flawed. The author accepts and presents an explanation for these results.
e
The stability in ███ ████ ██ ███ █████████ ██████ ████ ██████████ ████ ███ ███████ ███ █████████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████████████████ ██████
This accurately paraphrases the conclusion. The article’s criticism of the environmentalists’ claim - which relies on the stability of the wolf population as evidence - is not justified.