Q7

[youmin.moon]

Can anybody help me with (A) and (D)? I can vaguely understand that (A) is wrong because the passage is not concerned about the setback for science and the society. On top of that, the setback for science caused by the reduction in biodiversity is not even mentioned clearly. In the case of (D), initiating a massive extinction is out of scope. I understood to this extent, but I can't help but think that I'm missing major points on these two choices. Can anyone help me with these? Thanks in advance.

[christine.defenbaugh]

Very good question youmin.moon! You've already identified some key issues in both (A) and (D), excellent work! Let's break down the question completely.

When approaching a Synthesis question, we need to be prepared to deploy the full complement of reading comprehension skills: identification, inference, and synthesis.

The passage is focused primarily on characteristics the current reduction of biological diversity: it's a very bad thing and we humans are causing it. This appears to match up quite nicely with (E). We can support each element of this answer with line references:

"human-induced" - lines 3-4 "as human populations expand", lines 33-34 "human activity has had a devastating effect"
"incalculable proportions" - lines 7-8 "beyond calculation", line 45-46 "consequences are also the least predictable"
"potentially grave consequences" - line 8 "certain to be harmful", lines 52-53 "serious strategic error...will be increasingly regretted"

Not the Point!
(A) Unsupported/Contradicted. It may be a setback for science/society, but the passage doesn't use that language. Additionally, biodiversity reductions are actually not at all 'irreversible'. The passage indicates that our planet's general biodiversity picture has bounced back multiple times following mass extinctions, albeit slowly.

(B) Narrow Scope. The relationship between "biological wealth" and "material/cultural wealth" is a small detail in this passage. Also, this relationship is raised to support the point that bio-wealth is unstudied, unappreciated, and taken for granted. The author never claims which form of 'wealth' is more significant than the other.

(C) Unsupported. While the passage mentions both the enormous diversity of life and the past mass extinctions, it does not suggest the former required the latter. In fact, the high diversity was achieved in spite of the mass extinctions.

(D) Unsupported. We humans are reducing biodiversity, but does that mean we are "initiating a mass extinction"? And even if we were, is the passage predicting that ours will outstrip other mass extinction episodes? That's a tall order. There are no predictions in the passage about just how our biodiversity reductions will compare in the end.


Please let me know if this completely answers your question!

[WaltGrace1983]

Thanks for the analysis, Christine! I think (E) is almost perfect but - only during review of course - I cannot help but think about that word "potentially." In line 8 we get that the consequences are "certain to be harmful." There appears to be a mismatch going on here. Again, I wouldn't worry too much about this during a timed test but it may be fruitful to analyze it during review.

Would "potentially" be an okay assumption because it is softer than "certain to be" whereas if it was all flipped around, i.e. that the passage was talking about "potentially harmful consequences" and the answer choice was talking about "certainly harmful consequences," that would mean a detail creep because it oversteps the boundaries of the passage?

I hope that makes sense. What do you think?

By the way, I didn't think I would enjoy RC so much (after, you know, I started getting the fundamentals down to a point where I am not going -7 on every passage ). I am just going to start flooding the boards with analysis and explanations, get the buckets out .

[christine.defenbaugh]

Thanks for the analysis, Christine! I think (E) is almost perfect but - only during review of course - I cannot help but think about that word "potentially." In line 8 we get that the consequences are "certain to be harmful." There appears to be a mismatch going on here. Again, I wouldn't worry too much about this during a timed test but it may be fruitful to analyze it during review.

Would "potentially" be an okay assumption because it is softer than "certain to be" whereas if it was all flipped around, i.e. that the passage was talking about "potentially harmful consequences" and the answer choice was talking about "certainly harmful consequences," that would mean a detail creep because it oversteps the boundaries of the passage?

I hope that makes sense. What do you think?

By the way, I didn't think I would enjoy RC so much (after, you know, I started getting the fundamentals down to a point where I am not going -7 on every passage ). I am just going to start flooding the boards with analysis and explanations, get the buckets out .

We've got buckets to spare, so keep it coming!

Glad to hear that you are beginning to really get into your RC groove!

First, you are spot on that if the passage only supported "potentially harmful consequences", an answer choice that claimed "certainly harmful consequences" would be too strong, and unsupported.

However, in general, I wouldn't be thrilled with an answer that was definitively softer than the passage either. The passage supports the idea that the consequences will definitely, certainly be harmful, so an answer that waffled and claimed the main point was just that the consequences might possibly be harmful would feel entirely too wishy-washy.

But that's not actually what (E) is doing. "Potentially grave consequences" is a much stronger statement simply "potentially harmful consequences". It's not just saying the consequences might hurt, it's saying that the consequences might be DISASTROUS.

And this fits the strength of the passage perfectly - we can support "certain harm", but the passage doesn't claim that the consequences will definitely be "grave", though it does seem rather likely. The answer choice essentially maintains the balance by using a soft "potentially" with a very strong word "grave".

I'm thrilled you made my point for me about nitpicking on a small word like this during a timed exam, so that I didn't have to say it myself, though.