#17 - Concept Reference, Must Be true

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

The correct answer choice is (A).

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[sodomojo]

Should answer choice (E) be read as "If future ice ages occur, they are likely to interrupt..." or "Future ice ages will occur, and they are likely to interrupt..."?

If the latter, I understand why (E) would be incorrect, as the second paragraph makes no predictions regarding the likelihood of future ice ages.

However, I read (E) as the former, and figured for a most strongly supported question, lines 9-13 provided enough information to suggest that past ice ages have affected climatic conditions in temperate and arctic zones, and would likely do so again if another ice age were to arise.

In other words, does the wording of (E) necessarily imply a prediction that "future ice ages" will occur? How would (E) have to have been worded for my reading of it to be correct? Thanks for any help.

[Claire Horan]

Hi Sodomojo,

Answer choice (E) means that future ice ages are both likely to occur and likely to interrupt the climatic conditions that now characterize high-latitude regions. "Future ice ages are likely to interrupt..." does not mean that future ice ages will definitely occur, only that they are likely. For your interpretation, it would have actually said, "Future ice ages will occur, and they are likely to interrupt..."

Consider another example of this language. "Future flooding is likely to damage our house" or "Our house is likely to be damaged by future flooding." Neither of these statements means that the house will definitely be flooded but likely damaged. Both statements mean that future flooding is likely and when it happens it will likely cause damage.

Good luck studying!

Claire

[kch0522]

Hi -

why is (a) the correct answer?

i chose (d) b/c this seems to align with the theory's view that diverse species have emerged in tropical regions that have been unaffected by ice ages. if these regions have been unaffected, wouldn't they continue to be more plentiful? feels like the information in the passage supports that inference.

i can see why (a) is correct - only if we fasten on the author's point that ice ages have caused less disruption in certain artic regions. initially, i didn't ascribe this to the time theory and instead pegged it as a reason the author is skeptical about the theory. if there are unaffected artic regions then sure maybe we'll see an increase in the number of species at those certain high latitutes.

what are your thoughts/where am i going wrong?

many thanks,
kyle

[Adam Tyson]

Hey there Kyle! The problem with answer D is that while we would expect there to be many more species in the tropics than in other places, no matter which theory is correct, there is no reason to believe that we will continue to find many more of them. Maybe we have found all of them, or even just most of them? Or maybe we won't be any good at locating more than we already have, even if they are out there? Also, given more time free from ice ages, more species will continue to develop in non-tropical regions, perhaps at the same rate as in the tropics, and perhaps even faster. We cannot use that theory to predict that the tropics will continue to have more new species than elsewhere.

A is the better choice because if the time theory is correct, the more time you have without interruption by ice ages, the more species will emerge. Higher latitudes were hit by ice ages more recently than the tropics were, so they haven't had as much time to diversify. Give them more time, and if the theory is correct, new species should continue to develop!

[kch0522]

very helpful! thank you so much, adam!
truth be told, i didn't catch the "extreme" nature of (d).
your point is well taken: we're not 100% certain researchers will continue to find many more species. if the answer choice said researchers are likely to find more species, then maybe that would've been the correct answer, no? clarification for another time...I guess the main takeaway here is to keep tabs on the strength (ie likelihood, etc.) of the language.

[sparrrkk_]

Hi,

I just wanted to make sure I understand both the "time theory" and the reasoning why each answer choice is either correct or incorrect.

From my understanding, the "time theory" states that tropical regions haven't been affected by ice ages, so there was more time for diverse species to develop. So, tropical region --> no ice age --> more time.

A - The "time theory" holds that ice ages leads to less time for diverse species to develop. So, if there were no additional ice ages, the number of species at high latitudes could increase. I think "could" was especially important because ice ages might not be the only factor that slows diverse species development. Thus, "could" keeps open the possibility that it might not.

B - This is the opposite of what the theory argues.

C - This seems similar to A except that it focuses on climatic conditions instead of # of species. Thus, it's wrong since we can't infer this.

D - This is too strong.

E - This was initially my answer. Is this wrong because like C, it focuses on climatic conditions? The "time theory" only states that no ice ages provide more time for diverse species to develop without mention of changing climatic conditions. If there were no ice ages in tropical regions, temperate regions and arctic regions, they could have had similar # of species even though they have differing climatic conditions since they would have similar amounts of time for diverse species to develop.

Thank you for your help!

[Adam Tyson]

This analysis looks good to me, sparrrkk_, except perhaps for your take on answer B. I wouldn't say that it says the opposite of what the passage says, because the passage makes no predictions about whether there will be future ice ages or what impact they will have. It does seem like IF there are going to be more ice ages, the author would expect the opposite of answer B and predict at least some impact on some temperate regions, so in that sense you are correct. Overall, well done!