Self-study
Passage A.
P1
█████ █████████ ████████████████ ████ █████ ██████████ █████ ███ ██████ ██ █████████████ █████ ███ ██████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████████ ████ ███████ ████ ██████ ███████ ███████ █████ ██████████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ██ ████████ ████████ ████ █████████ ████████ ███ ████ ██████████ ██ ███ ████████ ███████ ████ ███████ █████ ██ ████ ████████ ██████ ████████ ███
Conservationists' old view ·
Introducing non-native species to a habitat is only a problem for disturbed habitats
Conservationists' (and author's) current view ·
Non-native species are a threat to even healthy habitats
P2
████████ ██████ ██████████ ██████ ██████████ ███ ████████ ████████████ ██████████ ███ ██████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ █████████ ████ ███ ██████████ ████████ ████ ██ ███████ ███████ ████ ███
Example 1 ·
Non-native Melaleuca trees are damaging the habitat in Everglades Park in Florida
The trees grow tall and outcompete some native plants for sunlight. Also, leaf litter from trees impedes water flow, which hurts native plants.
Example 2 ·
Non-native Scotch broom plants in Australia have harmed native reptiles
███████ █
P3
███ ████ ██████ █████ ██ █████████ ████████ ███████ █████ ███████ ██████ ███ ███████ ███████ █████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████████ ██ ███ █ ████████ █████ ████ ███ ███████ █████████ ███ ████ ██ █ ██████████ ██████ ███████ ███ ████ ████████ ███████████ ██ ██ █ ████████████ █████ ██ █████ ██████████ ███ ██████ ████ ███ ████ ████████ ███████ ██ ████ ██████ ███ ███████████ ███████████ ██████████ ████ █████ ████ █████████ █████ ████████ ████████████ ██ ███ █████ ██████ ██ ███ ███ ████ ███ ███████ ███ ████ ███ ██ ██ ██████ ████████ ███ ███████ ███████ █████ ████ ███
Author's perspective ·
Non-native species don't actually harm nature
They threaten our ideas of what "nature" is supposed to be. Biodiversity in an area often goes up when non-native species are introduced.
P4
█████████ █████ █████ ██████████ ██ █████████ █████████ ███ █████████ █████ ███ ██████████ ██ ██ ██████████ ███████ ██ █ █████ ██ █████ ███ █████████ ███████ ████ ████████ ██ ████████ ██ ███████ ███ ██ █████ ██ █████ ███ ██████ ██ ████████ █ █████ ██████████ ██████████ ███████ ██ █████████ ████ ██ ██████ ███████ ███ ███ ██████████ ██ ██████████ ████████ ██████ █████████ ███████████████████ ███████ ██ ████████ ███ ███████████████████ █████ ████ ██████████ ██████ ██ ██████████ ████ ██████ █████████ ████ ████ █████████ ███████████
Elaboration ·
Non-native species do change an ecosystem, but that's not necessarily bad
Contrast change in an ecosystem with destruction of an ecosystem. Destruction is bad. But change may not be bad.
P5
████ ███ █████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ██ █████████ ████████████ ███ ██████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ ███████ ████████ ████ ███ ████████ ██████ ██ ██████████ ██████████ ███████ ███████ █ ██████████ █ ███ ███████ ██ █████ ██████ ██████ ███ ██████ ████████████ ███ ████ █████ ███ ██████ ███████ ██████ █████ ██ ███████████ ███ █████ ████ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ████ ██ ██████████ ██ ██████ ███ ██████ ████ ████ ██ ██████ ██ ████ ████ ██████ ███
Concession and elaboration ·
A few species do cause damage and destroy other species, but most don't
Most non-native species will simply change nature, not destroy it.
Passage Style
19.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████████ ███ ████████████ ███████ ███ ███ █████████
a
Passage A presents █ ██████████ █████ ███ ██████ ██ █ ██████████ ███████████ █████ ███████ █ ████████ ██ ███████████ ██████████ █████ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ███████████
Neither passage presents a hypothesis about why species are introduced to ecosystems. Rather, they discuss the effects of introducing new species to ecosystems.
b
Passage A questions █ ██████ ██████████ █████ █ ██████████ ███████████ █████ ███████ █ █████ ███ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████████
It’s not clear what assumption Passage A questions. In any case, even if Passage A questions an assumption, Passage B doesn’t try to support the truth of an assumption.
c
Passage A presents ████████ ████ █ ██████████ ██████████ ██ ██████ ██████████ ██ ██ ████████████ █████ ███████ █ ████████ ████████ ████ ███ ████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ██████████ ██ ██ ███████████
Passage A doesn’t try to present evidence that something is widely considered to be undesirable; it directly argues that something is undesirable. There's a difference between presenting evidence that something is undesirable and presenting evidence that other people think something is undesirable. Also, Passage B doesn’t argue that the introduction of new species to an ecosystem is “considered” to be “beneficial”; it argues that such introduction isn’t necessarily harmful. Although Passage B does note that new species are often "positive-sum," this is a reference to how new species don't necessarily kill off old species. "Positve-sum" isn't used to suggest that there's anything beneficial or good about having more species.
d
Passage A warns █████ ███ ███████ ██ █ ██████████ ███████████ █████ ███████ █ ██████ ████ ███ ██████████ ██████ ███ █████████ ██ ██████████ ██████████
This best captures the relationship. Passage A warns about the dangers of introducing new species to an ecosystem. Passage B argues that introducing new species to an ecosystem
e
Passage A proposes █ ██████████ ██████ ██ ███████ █████ ███████ █ ██████ █████████ █████ ███ ████████████ ██ ████ █████████
Passage A doesn’t propose any course of action. It simply argues that introduction of new species to an ecosystem is dangerous. Passage B also does not question any approach proposed in Passage A, because no approach was proposed.