#10 - Human settlement of previously uninhabited areas tends

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Resolve the Paradox. The correct answer choice is (E)

In this stimulus, the writer discusses the fact that while human settlement of previously vacant lands
tends to endanger wildlife, the Mississippi kite has nevertheless flourished in areas where people
have settled—starting in 1985, the Mississippi kite population increased more during the following
five-year period in towns than in rural areas, contrary to what we would generally expect of wildlife.

The question stem asks us to resolve this apparent discrepancy, or explain why the Mississippi
kite population has not followed the typical pattern of diminishing in settled areas. In Resolve the
Paradox questions we look for the answer choice which provides a premise that is consistent with
both of the seemingly contrary premises in the stimulus. In this case, we should seek an answer
choice that refl ects some benefi t that this species derives from human-populated lands.

Answer choice (A): Loud firecrackers near roosting spots would clearly be intended to hinder these
birds, which is what we would expect. Since the kites have flourished regardless, this answer choice
only serves to widen the apparent discrepancy, so this answer choice should be eliminated.

Answer choice (B): While this answer choice provides that towns might be more nature-friendly than
big cities, it does not help explain the ability of the kites to thrive more in towns than in rural areas,
contrary to the normal reaction of bird populations to settlements, so this answer choice fails to
provide resolution to the paradox presented in the stimulus.

Answer choice (C): While such a treaty and its enforcements explain some degree of legal protection
for the birds when they do come into contact with humans, it still does not explain why these birds
have been doing better in prairie towns than in areas with no human population at all.

Answer choice (D): While the experiences of the pigeons and raccoons might show that it is possible
to adapt successfully to towns, this would imply that they have learned to co-exist successfully
where humans live. This doesn’t explain why the Mississippi kite has not only adapted, but
flourished more rapidly in towns than in rural areas, so this answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. This answer choice gives a reason why the
kites have flourished in towns along the North American prairie. If these towns’ trees tend to grow
more densely and thus offer more protection for the birds’ nests and eggs, this would explain why the
Mississippi kite’s population has increased more rapidly in towns.

[Sherry001]

Hello ;
Could some please clarify the difference between C and E . I was tricked !

So , I know this is a paradox question and I need to explain why human settlements that would originally lead to endangering animals has lead to kite bird's population to rise.

A) doesn't explain
B) doesn't explain

C) super attractive . It explains why the population has increased and allows the statement about human settlement to be true. ( the only issue I have with this choice is that it doesn't differentiate between rural and town areas ):(

D) doesn't explain .

E) the right answer .but I didn't like it . I see it as explaining the bird population rising in towns . But ignores the human settlement . I mean if there's human settlement in these towns then the population should have dropped . Unless we assume that these dense trees aside giving protection from hail and windstorms , also provides protection from humans ? ( isn't that too much to assume )? What the birds just stay in these trees all day long ?


Thank you
Sherry

[Steve Stein]

Hi Sherry,

That's an interesting one; human settlement is usually a threat to wildlife, so we might expect most wildlife to gravitate toward areas inhabited by fewer people. Yet over the past five years, the Mississippi kite population has risen more in towns than in rural areas.

In response to the Resolve the Paradox question that follows, we should look for the answer that helps to explain why, unlike most wildlife, this bird seems to thrive in towns more than in rural areas.

Answer choice (C) provides that protection of the kites has been effectively enforced. This could help to explain an overall increase in the kite population, but it does not address the fact that the kite population has increased more in towns than in rural areas.

Answer choice (E), however, helps to explain why the birds may do better in towns: The dense trees in towns provide better protection for the kites' nests and eggs. This would help explain why their population has risen more in towns than in rural areas.

Human settlement tends to endanger wildlife in general—but it seems that these dense trees provide enough benefit to outweigh whatever detrimental effects might normally be associated with human settlement.

I hope that's helpful! Please let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve