Bunuel wrote:
Conservationists have begun removing plant species believed to be nonnative, or introduced through human contact, from the Galápagos Islands to restore the islands’ ecosystem. But some of these species may be native after all. Humans first reached the Galápagos in 1535, but fossilized pollen grains of several species thought to be nonnative were found in sediment cores over 8,000 years old. Among these species is swamp hibiscus. This plant is spreading, which was taken as evidence of its invasiveness, but scientists now hypothesize that it is reclaiming habitat that was lost over time.
Which of the following would it be most useful to establish in order to evaluate the scientists’ hypothesis that swamp hibiscus is reclaiming habitat?
A. Whether swamp hibiscus provides food for any animal species native to the Galápagos
B. Whether swamp hibiscus found elsewhere is directly related to that growing in the Galápagos
C. Whether swamp hibiscus is native to areas from which the first humans to reach the Galápagos originated
D. Whether any nonnative plants recently removed from the Galápagos competed against swamp hibiscus for resources
E. Whether fossilized plant leaves have also been found on the Galápagos
This is evaluation based question for which It might strengthen or weaken the conclusion 'but scientists now hypothesize that it is reclaiming habitat that was lost over time'. Looking at the corresponding options
a)Whether swamp hibiscus provides food for any animal species native to the Galápagos- irrelevant to the conclusion as it does not matter that the plant contributes in the ecological cycle for it to thrive as it may/may not be some organism's source of food but it may still be growing. out of scope.
b) Whether swamp hibiscus found elsewhere is directly related to that growing in the Galápagos- what happens to swamp hibiscus elsewhere and how closely it is related here has nothing to do with its repopulation.
c)Whether swamp hibiscus is native to areas from which the first humans to reach the Galápagos originated-The conclusion talks about swamp hisbiscus reclaiming the land so it has got nothing to do with its native status.
d)Whether any nonnative plants recently removed from the Galápagos competed against swamp hibiscus for resources
-Correct. When the swamp hisbiscus will be reclaiming land from another plant, it must be competing for resources with that species plus the nonative species that was recently removed must have given swamp hisbiscus the resources of land, soil etc which was necessary for the plantt to reclaim its land
e)Whether fossilized plant leaves have also been found on the Galápagos-irrelevant as the conclusion is about the reclamation of territories which has got nothing to do with foosilized plant
close
12 Mar 2024, 02:02
45%
(02:34)
wrong 
