Question 221·Medium·Rhetorical Synthesis
While researching a topic, a student has taken the following notes:
• In 1956, wildlife managers intentionally stocked Lake Wingra (Wisconsin) with common carp.
• As they feed, carp uproot submerged aquatic plants, which clouds the water with sediment and organic matter.
• Cloudy, or turbid, water blocks sunlight, stressing native plants and fish that rely on clear conditions.
• A 2010 restoration project removed about 80% of the lake’s carp population.
• Within two years of the removal, the lake’s water clarity improved markedly.
The student wants to explain how carp affected Lake Wingra’s ecosystem and what happened after most carp were removed. Which choice most effectively uses relevant information from the notes to accomplish this goal?
For rhetorical synthesis questions like this, start by restating the exact writing goal in your own words (what information must be included and how it should be connected). Then scan the notes and mentally tag which bullets match each part of that goal (cause, effect, before, after). When you look at the answer choices, eliminate any that (1) leave out one of the required parts, (2) add irrelevant details, or (3) shift away from the specific focus of the prompt. Choose the option that is both factually accurate and most completely fulfills the stated goal in a single, clear sentence.
Hints
Clarify what the question is asking for
Underline the two tasks in the question: explain how carp affected the ecosystem, and explain what happened after most carp were removed. Any correct answer must cover both.
Match tasks to specific notes
Look back at the bullets and decide which ones describe the harm caused by carp and which ones describe what happened after the 2010 removal. Keep those specific ideas in mind when checking the choices.
Check for completeness, not just accuracy
More than one choice may contain true statements from the notes, but only one will satisfy all parts of the goal in a single, clear sentence. Ask yourself: does this choice stop too early, or leave out either the harm or the later improvement?
Watch out for choices that focus on only one time period
Be careful with answers that talk only about the past (stocking and harm) or only about the restoration (recent changes). The question wants the story from stocking through removal and its effects.
Step-by-step Explanation
Understand the writing goal
The question says the student wants to explain (1) how carp affected Lake Wingra’s ecosystem and (2) what happened after most carp were removed.
So the correct sentence must do both:
- Describe the negative impact carp had on the lake.
- Describe the changes after the 2010 removal of most of the carp.
Identify which notes are relevant
From the bullet points, pull out details that match the goal:
- Carp stocked in 1956 (start of the issue).
- Carp uproot plants and cloud the water (how they affect the ecosystem negatively).
- Cloudy (turbid) water blocks sunlight and stresses native plants and fish (explains why that’s harmful).
- 2010 project removed about 80% of carp (what was done later).
- Within two years, water clarity improved markedly (what happened after removal).
A good answer will connect these into a cause-and-effect explanation across time.
Check each option against the full goal
Now compare each choice to the two-part goal:
- Does it explain how carp affected the ecosystem (specifically the harm they caused)?
- Does it explain what happened after most carp were removed (the recovery, especially clearer water)?
Eliminate any option that only gives timing, only gives harm, or only gives recovery.
Select the option that fully and accurately summarizes the notes
Choice A is the only option that clearly states that stocking carp in 1956 harmed the ecosystem (by uprooting plants and clouding the water) and that removing most carp in 2010 allowed the lake to begin recovering. Therefore, the correct answer is: “Stocking Lake Wingra with carp in 1956 harmed the lake ecosystem because carp uprooted plants and clouded the water, but removing most of the carp in 2010 allowed the lake to begin recovering.”