Self-study
Environmentalist: The complex ecosystem of the North American prairie has largely been destroyed to produce cattle feed. ███ ███ ███████ █████████ ████ █████████ ██ ██ ██ ███████ ██████ ███████ █████ ████████ ███████████ ███ ████████ █████ ██ ███████ ███████ █████ █████ █████ ██ ████ ████ ██ ███████ ███ ███ ███████ ███████ ████████ ███████ ███████████ ██████████ ███ ██████████ ██████████ █████████ ██ ████ ████ ██ ████████ ██ ██ ████████████ █████ █████ ███████ ████████████ ███████ █ █████ ████████ ██ ████ ███████████
Summarize Argument
Returning land to an uncultivated state could restore biodiversity and avoid a decrease in meat production. How? The ecosystem and biodiversity of the prairie was destroyed to feed cows, but bison yield as much meat as cows, and uncultivated land has supported a similar number of bison to our current cattle count without the presence of things that destroyed the ecosystem.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion asserts the potential of returning lands to an uncultivated state: “... returning as much land as possible to an uncultivated state could restore biodiversity without a major decrease in meat production.”
11.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ ███ ██████████████████ ████ ███████████
a
If earlier North ████████ ████████████ ██████████ ████ █████████████ ████ ██████████ █████ ████████ ████ █████████
We don’t know anything about earlier agricultural techniques. Also, the author is discussing the appeal of uncultivated land; to use any kind of agricultural technique would be to cultivate it.
b
Protecting the habitat ██ ████ ███████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ███████ █████ ███████ ██ █ ████ ██████ ██ ████ ████ █████████ ████ ███████ ████████████ ████████
This isn’t stated in or supported by our argument, so it isn’t the conclusion. Also, the argument doesn’t address what is cost effective.
c
The biodiversity of ███ █████ ████████ ███████ █████████ ██████ ███ ██ ████████ ██ █████ ██ ████ ████ ███████████ ████████ █████████████
The author never makes a prescriptive claim (i.e. should or should not). Also, the argument doesn’t address economic consequences.
d
Preservation of the █████████ █████ ████████ █████ █████ ██ █ ████████ ███████
The environmentalists makes no judgment on what is or is not sensible. The argument only addresses the potential impacts of returning to uncultivated land on meat production and biodiversity.
e
The devastation of ███ █████ ████████ ███████ █████████ █████ ██ ███████ ████████ ███████ █████████████ ██████████ ████ ███████████
This accurately rephrases the main conclusion. The argument supports the claim that returning to uncultivated land could restore biodiversity lost from the destroyed prairie ecosystem, and that meat yield wouldn’t have to be sacrificed to do it.