Question 183·Hard·Transitions
Many ecologists promote rewilding—restoring large tracts of land to an unmanaged state—arguing that doing so revitalizes ecosystems by allowing apex predators to return. ______ critics warn that reintroducing predators near populated areas can disrupt existing conservation gains and generate new conflicts with humans.
Which choice completes the text with the most logical transition?
For transition questions, always read the sentence before and after the blank and first decide the relationship between the ideas: same direction (addition), contrast, cause/effect, example, or conclusion. Once you label the relationship in simple terms—like “this is the opposite view” or “this is a result”—match that to the meaning of the transition choices. Eliminate any option whose usual function (example, result, conclusion) does not match the relationship you identified, and only then pick the best remaining word or phrase.
Hints
Compare the two groups mentioned
Notice that the first part talks about ecologists who promote rewilding, and the second part talks about critics. Ask yourself whether these two groups agree or disagree.
Decide the relationship between the ideas
Is the critics’ warning a result of rewilding, an example of rewilding, or a viewpoint that pushes back against the ecologists’ argument?
Match meaning of transitions to the relationship
Think about what each transition word usually does: some show cause and effect, some give examples, and some show contrast. Which type do you need here?
Step-by-step Explanation
Understand what each side is saying
First, restate each part in your own words:
- First part: Many ecologists support rewilding and say it helps ecosystems.
- Second part: Critics warn that bringing predators back near people can harm existing conservation work and create conflicts.
So the second part is not adding support; it is raising concerns about the idea in the first part.
Identify the logical relationship
Ask: Is the second part
- a result of the first?
- an example of the first?
- or an opposing/contrasting viewpoint?
Here, the second part comes from critics and describes potential problems, so it presents an opposite perspective to the ecologists’ positive view. That means we need a transition that shows contrast between viewpoints.
Classify what each option usually signals
Now think about what each transition generally means:
- A) "Consequently," = as a result of what came before.
- B) [the correct option] = introduces an opposite or contrasting idea.
- C) "For example," = introduces a specific example of what came before.
- D) "Therefore," = introduces a conclusion or result.
Only one of these signals a contrast between two sides of an argument, which is the relationship we found.
Match the relationship to the correct transition
Because the second clause introduces the concerns of critics, which oppose the positive claims of the ecologists, the transition must show contrast between the two viewpoints. The only option that signals this kind of contrast is B) Conversely,.