- Wed Sep 10, 2025 2:58 pm
#115163
Hi Djaviana,
The author of Passage B isn't claiming that the purple loosestrife has had no effect on wildlife, only that the people who practice purple loosestrife control have exaggerated the effect/damage and that they have valued certain species (such as game birds and furbearing mammals) over other species due to economic reasons.
There are a few textual clues in Passage B to indicate that the author admits that purple loosestrife has had an effect on wildlife. The second paragraph begins "Regardless of the perceived and actual ecological effects posed by the purple invader..." (my emphasis)(lines 43-44). This indicates that the purple loosestrife has in fact had ecological effects on wildlife, just not the exaggerated effects that are perceived by the people who want to eliminate purple loosestrife. While this line doesn't specifically mention wetlands, the final sentence of the passage does.
The final sentence of Passage B indicates that "what is threatened by the purple loosestrife is the economics of exploiting such preferred species (i.e. game birds and furbearing mammals) ... due to the decline in the production of the wetland resource (again referring to game birds and furbearing mammals)(my emphasis)(lines 59-65). In other words, the purple loosestrife is causing a decrease in these wetland species (although not to the extent that they are endangered).