Just as paleontologists claim that ecologists' findings about the evolution and extinction of species help eliminate discontinuities in the history...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
Source: Mock
...
...
Post a Query
Just as paleontologists claim that ecologists' findings about the evolution and extinction of species help eliminate discontinuities in the history of life on Earth, ecologists have recently found that paleontology aids in predicting the effects of rapid climate change and habitat destruction. For example, one paleontological study, in which pollen found in lake sediments was analyzed to determine how North American forests responded to the last ice age, supports one side of a debate over the stability of "ecological communities," or species that evolved in proximity to each other and with some degree of interdependence. Pro-stability ecologists believe that such communities are quite stable due to strong interdependence so that, for example, tree species that evolve together as a community can be expected to remain together since each significantly affects immediate environmental factors such as soil chemistry and shade. But while the pollen study did indicate that advancing glaciers caused the gradual relocation of three tree species-birch, fir, and spruce-that had comprised one community, it also supported the assumption of anti-stability proponents that the three species did not, after all, move together as would the inhabitants of a town resettling en masse on higher ground during flooding. Instead, the spruce trees began to share an ecosystem with sedge grasses, becoming part of an entirely different community.
Ques. 1/3
The passage is primarily concerned with
Solution
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Just as paleontologists claim that ecologists' findings about the evolution and extinction of species help eliminate discontinuities in the history of life on Earth, ecologists have recently found that paleontology aids in predicting the effects of rapid climate change and habitat destruction. | What it says: Two scientific fields help each other - paleontologists use ecology data, and ecologists use paleontology data. What it does: Introduces the main concept of mutual scientific collaboration Source/Type: Author's statement about researchers' claims Connection to Previous Sentences: This is our starting point - no previous information to connect to Visualization: Think of it like two departments in a company: • Department A (paleontologists) uses Department B's research • Department B (ecologists) uses Department A's research • Both benefit from sharing information Reading Strategy Insight: The "Just as..." structure signals we're getting a balanced comparison, not a complex argument What We Know So Far: Sciences help each other What We Don't Know Yet: Specific examples of how this works |
| For example, one paleontological study, in which pollen found in lake sediments was analyzed to determine how North American forests responded to the last ice age, supports one side of a debate over the stability of "ecological communities," or species that evolved in proximity to each other and with some degree of interdependence. | What it says: Scientists studied old pollen to see how forests changed during the ice age, and this study helps resolve a debate about whether groups of species stick together. What it does: Provides the promised example and introduces a specific debate Source/Type: Description of a research study Connection to Previous Sentences: • Sentence 1 promised that paleontology helps ecology • NOW we get the "for example" - this is NOT new complexity, it's the explanation we were waiting for • This builds directly on the mutual help concept Visualization: Picture this study: • Scientists go to a lake • They dig up old mud containing ancient pollen (like a time capsule) • They analyze what types of trees lived there 10,000 years ago during ice age • This helps resolve a current debate: Do species move together as groups? Reading Strategy Insight: "For example" is your friend - it means simplification is coming, not more complexity |
| Pro-stability ecologists believe that such communities are quite stable due to strong interdependence so that, for example, tree species that evolve together as a community can be expected to remain together since each significantly affects immediate environmental factors such as soil chemistry and shade. | What it says: One group of scientists thinks species groups stay together because they depend on each other (like trees affecting soil and shade for other trees). What it does: Explains the first side of the debate mentioned in the previous sentence Source/Type: Scientists' belief/theory Connection to Previous Sentences: • Sentence 2 mentioned "a debate over stability" • NOW we learn what "pro-stability" scientists believe • This is clarification, not new information - we're getting the details of the debate we already knew existed Visualization: Think of species communities like a tight-knit neighborhood: • Oak trees provide shade for smaller plants • Those plants enrich the soil chemistry • Different species depend on each other • Pro-stability view: This neighborhood moves together, like 100 families relocating to the same new town Reading Strategy Insight: Feel relieved here - this is just filling in details of concepts already introduced |
| But while the pollen study did indicate that advancing glaciers caused the gradual relocation of three tree species-birch, fir, and spruce-that had comprised one community, it also supported the assumption of anti-stability proponents that the three species did not, after all, move together as would the inhabitants of a town resettling en masse on higher ground during flooding. | What it says: The study showed that birch, fir, and spruce trees (which used to live together) did NOT move together when glaciers advanced. This supports the anti-stability scientists. What it does: Presents the study's findings and indicates which side of the debate wins Source/Type: Research findings Connection to Previous Sentences: • Sentence 2 introduced the pollen study and mentioned a debate • Sentence 3 explained the pro-stability position • NOW we get the actual study results and learn about the anti-stability position • "But" signals contrast - the study did NOT support pro-stability Visualization: Picture the ice age scenario: • Original community: Birch + Fir + Spruce living together in Location A • Glaciers advance (like a slow-moving bulldozer) • Pro-stability prediction: All 3 species move together to Location B • Actual result: The 3 species scattered to different locations • Like neighbors from the same street moving to completely different cities Reading Strategy Insight: The author helpfully gives us a concrete analogy (town resettling during flooding) to make the concept clear |
| Instead, the spruce trees began to share an ecosystem with sedge grasses, becoming part of an entirely different community. | What it says: The spruce trees ended up living with completely different species (sedge grasses) instead of their original birch and fir neighbors. What it does: Provides a specific example that reinforces the anti-stability conclusion Source/Type: Research findings (continued) Connection to Previous Sentences: • Previous sentence said the three species didn't move together • NOW we get the concrete proof: spruce ended up with completely different neighbors • This is NOT new complexity - it's just the specific example that proves the general point already made Visualization: Extend our neighborhood analogy: • Original neighborhood: Birch family + Fir family + Spruce family • After the "disaster" (glaciers): - Birch family: moved to unknown location - Fir family: moved to unknown location - Spruce family: moved in with the Sedge-Grass family (completely different type of neighbor) • Like a family from a suburban street ending up in a farming community Reading Strategy Insight: "Instead" + specific example = confirmation, not complication. The author is reinforcing the conclusion with concrete evidence. Final Summary - What We Know: • Sciences help each other • A pollen study resolved a debate about whether species communities stick together • Result: They don't stick together (anti-stability wins) • Proof: Spruce trees ended up with entirely different neighbors |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To illustrate how two scientific fields help each other by showing how a specific study resolved a debate about whether species communities stick together during environmental changes.
Summary of Passage Structure:
The author builds their explanation in clear steps:
- First, the author introduces the idea that paleontology and ecology help each other solve scientific questions
- Next, the author provides a specific example of a pollen study that helped resolve a debate about ecological community stability
- Then, the author explains what the pro-stability scientists believed would happen when environmental changes force species to relocate
- Finally, the author reveals what the study actually found and provides concrete evidence that supports the anti-stability position
Main Point:
Scientific evidence shows that species communities are not as stable as some scientists thought - when environmental changes force them to move, species do not stick together as a group but instead scatter and form entirely new communities with different species.
3. Question Analysis:
This question asks us to identify the primary concern or main purpose of the passage. We need to determine what the author is fundamentally trying to accomplish throughout the entire passage.
Connecting to Our Passage Analysis:
From our progressive analysis, we can see that:
- The passage opens by establishing that paleontology and ecology help each other solve scientific questions
- The author then promises a specific example with "For example"
- The entire rest of the passage delivers on that promise by showing how a pollen study (paleontology) helped resolve an ecological debate
- The passage structure follows: General principle → Specific example → Detailed explanation of that example
Prethinking:
Based on the passage structure and analysis, the primary concern appears to be demonstrating how paleontological findings can illuminate ecological questions. The author uses the stability debate as a vehicle to show this interdisciplinary collaboration, but the debate itself is not the main focus - it's the example that proves the larger point about how these sciences help each other.
Answer Choices Explained
A
demonstrating that paleontologists have made important contributions to the study of the effects of habitat destruction during the last ice age
Why It's Wrong: The passage mentions habitat destruction only briefly in the opening sentence as background context. The main focus is on how paleontology helps ecology, not specifically on paleontologists' contributions to habitat destruction studies. The ice age example is used to illustrate interdisciplinary collaboration, not to demonstrate paleontological contributions to habitat destruction research.
B
countering the theory that species in ecological communities are stable and interdependent
Why It's Wrong: The passage doesn't aim to counter the pro-stability theory; it presents both sides of the debate neutrally. The author's purpose is to show how paleontological evidence helps resolve ecological debates, not to advocate for one side. The study results happen to support anti-stability, but the author's focus is on the methodology and interdisciplinary collaboration.
C
analyzing the reasons for the debate about the interdependence of species in ecological communities
Why It's Wrong: The passage doesn't analyze the reasons for the debate's existence. The author explains what each side believes but doesn't explore why the debate arose or what caused the disagreement. The focus is on how the debate was resolved through paleontological evidence, not on the debate's origins.
D
presenting an example of how the findings of paleontologists can illuminate questions in the field of ecology
Why It's Right: The passage begins by establishing that paleontology helps ecology predict climate change effects. The author then provides a concrete example demonstrating this principle. The entire passage structure supports this purpose: general principle → specific illustration. The ecological debate serves as the vehicle to show how paleontological findings (pollen study) can resolve ecological questions.
E
tracing the effects of rapid climate change on a given ecological community of tree species
Why It's Wrong: The passage doesn't trace effects on a specific community - it shows how one community broke apart. The climate change effects are mentioned as background, not as the primary focus. The author's main concern is demonstrating interdisciplinary scientific collaboration, not environmental impact analysis.
Rate this Solution
Tell us what you think about this solution
Forum Discussions
Start a new discussion
Post
Load More