This is a strengthener fill-in-the-blank question. We need to give reason for supporting the conclusion.
Option E makes sense to me, it gives a reason why habitat restoration should be a focus.
The argument states that restoring habitats will "REBOUND" (start INCREASING) the indigenous fish population. So choice A is incorrect as it talks about decline. If there was no decline in habitat then it's possible that the fish population would've stayed the same and would not INCREASE. So this choice doesn't even support the rebound part of the argument.
Opt E states: that since the target trout fishes are indigenous, the habitat must have SUPPORTED their population INCREASE until their overabundance caused their habitat to degrade, leading to a decrease in their population. => So if we restore the habitat again we can have the same conditions that increased the population in the past. Not a great option but convincing enough.
Opt B states: It is wrong because it assumes "if
...
Option E makes sense to me, it gives a reason why habitat restoration should be a focus.
The argument states that restoring habitats will "REBOUND" (start INCREASING) the indigenous fish population. So choice A is incorrect as it talks about decline. If there was no decline in habitat then it's possible that the fish population would've stayed the same and would not INCREASE. So this choice doesn't even support the rebound part of the argument.
Opt E states: that since the target trout fishes are indigenous, the habitat must have SUPPORTED their population INCREASE until their overabundance caused their habitat to degrade, leading to a decrease in their population. => So if we restore the habitat again we can have the same conditions that increased the population in the past. Not a great option but convincing enough.
Opt B states: It is wrong because it assumes "if
...
Statistics : Posted by 8Harshitsharma • on 03 Apr 2024, 21:44 • Replies 8 • Views 913
