Question 57·Hard·Central Ideas and Details
Marine ecologist Marina Costa analyzed four decades of data from eight Mediterranean seaside towns that had banned bottom-trawling within two nautical miles of shore. The prohibition was enacted in the early 1980s to prevent the nets from stirring up sediment that accelerated beach erosion, a threat to the region’s tourism economy. Costa’s new survey shows that, compared with similar towns without the ban, the protected waters now host 40 percent more adult fish and nearly double the coverage of seagrass meadows, a critical nursery habitat. Costa notes that no complementary fisheries regulations—such as catch limits—were introduced during the period. She argues that the findings illustrate how “policies aimed at solving one problem can, decades later, solve another we never anticipated.”
Which choice is most strongly supported by the information in the passage?
For “most strongly supported” Reading & Writing questions, first restate in your own words the key facts and relationships in the passage (original purpose, observed results, any explicit contrasts). Then test each answer choice against the text: eliminate any that (1) add an unstated claim about purpose or mechanism, (2) go beyond what the evidence supports (overgeneralizations), or (3) require assumptions the passage doesn’t justify. The correct answer will closely paraphrase or logically extend what is clearly stated.
Hints
Focus on the original purpose
Look at the sentences that explain why the bottom-trawling ban was enacted in the early 1980s. What specific problem were they trying to solve at that time?
Look at the new findings
Identify the concrete outcomes Costa’s survey reports—what changed in the protected waters compared with similar towns without the ban?
Pay attention to what did not happen
What does Costa say about additional fisheries regulations like catch limits during the study period? How does that affect which answer choices can be true?
Use Costa’s final quotation
Reread the sentence that begins “She argues that the findings illustrate…” How does her comment about policies solving unanticipated problems relate to the answer choices?
Step-by-step Explanation
Identify what the question is asking
The question asks which statement is most strongly supported by the passage. That means the correct answer must match what the passage clearly says or directly implies; it cannot contradict the passage or introduce unsupported details.
Pinpoint the original purpose of the ban
The passage states that the bottom-trawling prohibition "was enacted in the early 1980s to prevent the nets from stirring up sediment that accelerated beach erosion, a threat to the region’s tourism economy." So the primary goal of the ban was to reduce beach erosion and protect tourism, not to directly manage fish stocks or restore habitats.
Note the observed results and the lack of other regulations
Costa’s survey found that, compared with similar towns without the ban, the protected waters now have 40% more adult fish and nearly double the coverage of seagrass meadows. The passage also says Costa "notes that no complementary fisheries regulations—such as catch limits—were introduced during the period." Finally, Costa argues these findings show that policies can solve a different, unanticipated problem decades later.
Match each answer choice to the passage
Now compare the choices to the text:
- “The ban was enacted both to reduce beach erosion and to protect marine nursery habitats such as seagrass meadows.” The passage states only the erosion-related motivation; it does not say protecting seagrass was part of the original intent.
- “Because no catch limits were introduced, the increases in fish and seagrass are best explained by factors unrelated to the ban.” The passage does not support ruling out the ban; in fact, it highlights ecological improvements in the towns with the ban compared with similar towns without it.
- “Costa’s findings show that banning bottom-trawling alone will restore marine ecosystems in Mediterranean coastal towns.” This overgeneralizes from eight towns to all Mediterranean coastal towns and treats the results as guaranteed.
- “The bottom-trawling ban unintentionally promoted conditions that helped marine life rebound.” This is directly supported: the ban targeted erosion, yet decades later fish and seagrass increased, matching Costa’s point about policies solving an unanticipated problem. Therefore, the correct answer is: “The bottom-trawling ban unintentionally promoted conditions that helped marine life rebound.”