Question 122·Medium·Inferences
At a town meeting about invasive plants, a local headline described them as "unstoppable." The ecologist invited to speak replied that while completely removing a well-established invader is rarely feasible, coordinated, long-term efforts can lessen its effects—for example, preventing it from crowding out native seedlings and keeping waterways navigable. He added that managers often shift resources as conditions change rather than seeking a one-time victory, suggesting that, in the ecologist’s view, effective invasive-species management ______
Which choice most logically completes the text?
For “logically completes the text” questions, first restate in your own words what the author has just argued or implied right before the blank—especially any contrast or clarification. Then, quickly eliminate options that (1) contradict explicit statements, (2) introduce brand-new topics (like money or politics) that the passage never mentioned, or (3) use extreme language such as "every," "only," or "permanently impossible" unless the passage clearly supports that. Finally, choose the option that paraphrases the core idea and matches the passage’s tone and level of certainty.
Hints
Locate the key description of management
Focus on the sentences after the word "replied"—what does the ecologist say about what managers actually do with invasive species?
Notice what is not possible or realistic
The ecologist says that completely removing a well-established invader is "rarely feasible." How should that affect your view of options that mention total elimination or permanent prevention?
Pay attention to time frame and flexibility
He mentions "coordinated, long-term efforts" and that managers shift resources as conditions change. Which options fit that ongoing, flexible approach, and which suggest a one-time, all-or-nothing solution?
Watch for extreme words
Look carefully for words like "every," "only," and "permanently impossible." Ask whether the passage supports such absolute conditions.
Step-by-step Explanation
Identify what the ecologist disagrees with
The headline calls invasive plants "unstoppable," implying that nothing effective can be done. The ecologist pushes back on this by explaining what can be done in practice, even if complete removal is not realistic.
Pinpoint the main idea of his explanation
He says that completely removing a well-established invader is rarely feasible, but that coordinated, long-term efforts can lessen its effects, such as:
- preventing it from crowding out native seedlings
- keeping waterways navigable
He also says managers shift resources as conditions change rather than seek a one-time victory. So his focus is on ongoing management of impacts, not total elimination or a single, final solution.
Test each answer against that main idea
Now compare each option to what he described:
- One option talks about reducing an invader’s harm to a level that ecosystems and communities can handle. This matches the idea of lessening effects and keeping key functions (like native seedlings and navigable waterways) intact.
- Another option says success depends on eradicating every population, which clashes with "completely removing...is rarely feasible."
- Another says success is only when new introductions are "permanently impossible," which is an extreme, absolute condition not mentioned in the passage.
- Another focuses on immediate, short-term cost savings, which conflicts with his emphasis on coordinated, long-term efforts and ecological outcomes, not money.
Select the answer that matches the ecologist’s view
The only choice that fits the ecologist’s description of long-term, adaptive efforts that lessen an invader’s effects so that ecosystems and communities can keep functioning is:
A) aims to lower an invader’s harm to levels ecosystems and communities can tolerate.