There are recent reports of apparently drastic declines in amphibian

Passage: Amphibian Populations

Question: Inference–Extinctions

The Simple Story

According to reports, certain amphibian populations are undergoing drastic decline or even extinction. Environmentalists believe that these changes are due to human activity. The passage explains how to evaluate these claims. First, it draws a distinction between a declining population and an endangered population. Then, it explains that a decline may be worse than an extinction, but may also be harmless. Finally, it concludes that there is not enough data to determine whether the amphibian population is actually declining, and whether that decline represents a crisis. However, since there is limited data, and inaction could cause serious problems, the passage argues that people should still act to protect the amphibians.

Sample Passage Map

Here is one way to map this passage. (Note: abbreviate as desired!)

P1:

- Amph declines & extinctions: bad sign?
- Env.: action needed, declines caused by humans

P2:

- Evaluate env. Claims
- Decline doesn’t = endangered

P3:

- Declines worse than extinctions
- But, some declines are okay

P4:

- Limited data
- Don’t know if amphibians are really declining?
- But: should take action now anyways

Step 1: Identify the Question

The word inferred in the question stem indicates that this is an Inference question.

Step 2: Find the Support

The entire passage deals with the amphibian extinctions, and with the author’s views on population decline and extinction. Check the answer choices to see if they provide more guidance on where to find the answer. The answer choices seem to represent general claims about the author’s beliefs, so review your passage map briefly and be prepared to find support in various places in the passage.

Step 3: Predict an Answer

It’s difficult to predict a specific answer to this question, since the author makes a number of statements about the extinctions and about extinctions in general. Focus on eliminating answer choices that don’t match the author’s claims.

Step 4: Eliminate and Find a Match

(A) This is the viewpoint of the environmentalists mentioned in the first paragraph, not of the author. The author agrees with the environmentalists that action should be taken, but does not commit to a specific viewpoint on why (or even whether) the declines occurred.

(B) The author calls for environmental action in this passage, but does not specify whether this action would involve protecting amphibian habitats.

(C) The author does state that the extinction of an endangered species is not a surprise. However, the author does not apply this statement to amphibians, and in fact, the amphibian population decline is described as recent.

(D) The author states that chance events can lead to extinction. However, the author does not speculate on whether this is true in the case of the amphibians. It most likely is not, since the author claims that chance events can lead to extinction specifically in the case of endangered species, and does not state that the amphibians were previously endangered.

(E) CORRECT. The environmentalists mentioned in the first paragraph claim that the “amphibian crisis”…is an indicator of general and catastrophic environmental degradation due to human activity. However, the author states that declines can have multiple causes, and that in the case of the amphibians, there is too little data to distinguish between these causes.
_________________

You're not alone in asking about question #6...

Question 6

Question 6 asks about the function of the following sentence:

"Anecdotal reports of population decreases cannot distinguish among these possibilities, and some amphibian populations have shown strong fluctuations in the past."

(B) states that the purpose of this sentence is:

The previous sentence is:

"Even here, distinctions must again be made among declines that are only apparent (in the sense that they are part of habitual cycles or of normal fluctuations), declines that take a population to some lower but still acceptable level, and those that threaten extinction (e.g., by taking the number of individuals below the minimum viable population)."

The assertion made in this sentence is that "distinctions must again be made" among different kinds of declining species. The sentence discussed in question 6 says that we cannot make these distinctions using anecdotal reports.

So, the sentence in question doesn't cast doubt on the assertion made in the previous sentence -- the author still believes that we should make these distinctions. He/she just says that we can't do that with certain kinds of reports.

Compare that to (C):

In the first paragraph, the environmentalists claim that reports of amphibian population decline indicate "general and catastrophic environmental degradation due to human activity." By stating that certain reports can't give us all of the information we need to evaluate that claim, the author is raising an objection to the environmentalists' view.

To answer @coinsy's question -- yes, the first paragraph specifies that the environmentalists will only hold their claim if the reported population declines are real. However, being "real" doesn't help to determine which kind of population decline is occurring -- is it part of a normal fluctuation? Or one that will take the population to a low but acceptable level? Or will it truly threaten extinction?

In saying that this determination cannot be made, the author raises an objection even if amphibian populations are declining, as reported.

(C) is the correct answer to question 6.

I hope that helps!
_________________

This is my interpretation and approach for Q

3. It can be inferred from the passage that the author believes which of the following to be true of the amphibian extinctions that have recently been reported?

(A) They have resulted primarily from human activities causing environmental degradation.
(B)They could probably have been prevented if timely action had been taken to protect the habitats of amphibian species.
(C) They should not come as a surprise, because amphibian populations generally have been declining for a number of years.
(D) They have probably been caused by a combination of chance events.
(E) They do not clearly constitute evidence of general environmental degradation.

These declines, if real, may be signs of a general trend toward extinction, and many environmentalists have claimed that immediate environmental action is necessary to remedy this "amphibian crisis", which, in their view, is an indicator of general and catastrophic environmental degradation due to human activity. (P1)
Explanation: The author then explains the possible causes for the decline and those causes might not lead to general and catastrophic environmental degradation.
i.e. Since the author does not agree with the environmentalists --- EXPECT ANSWER TO BE FLIPPED OF WHAT THE PASSAGE STATES
(Environmentalist believes the decline is an indicator of general and catastrophic environmental degradation.)
(ANS EXPECTED: Author DOES NOT believe the decline is an indicator of general and catastrophic environmental degradation)

6. Which of the following best describes the function of the sentence in lines 35-38?

(A) To give an example of a particular kind of study
(B) To cast doubt on an assertion made in the previous sentence
(C) To raise an objection to a view presented in the first paragraph
(D) To provide support for a view presented in the first paragraph
(E) To introduce an idea that will be countered in the following paragraph.

POE:
The BOLD STATEMENTS is a support of the preceding and the latter sentence.
P2, P3 and P4 goes against the idea that is presented in P1 that state that the decline leads to extinction.

By the way , if anyone has explanation for Q2, please post because I am stuck between C and D, and please further explain how to use the flipped method on this inference question. Thanks.

many environmentalists have claimed that immediate environmental action is necessary to remedy this "amphibian crisis", which, in their view, is an indicator of general and catastrophic environmental degradation due to human activity.

To evaluate these claims, it is useful to make a preliminary distinction that is far too often ignored.


2. It can be inferred from the passage that the author believes which of the following to be true of the environmentalists mentioned in lines 5-6?

(A) They have wrongly chosen to focus on anecdotal reports rather than on the long-term data that are currently available concerning amphibians.
(B) Their recommendations are flawed because their research focuses too narrowly on a single category of animal species.
(C) Their certainty that population declines in general are caused by environmental degradation is not warranted.
(D) They have drawn premature conclusions concerning a crisis in amphibian populations from recent reports of declines.---that is why,correct
(E) They have overestimated the effects of chance events on trends in amphibian populations.

After a slight doubt in the first question (between A and E), easily cruised through this one....ADEDBC
Although, the author does try to allay some fears of the "environmentalists" pertaining to their fear of the extinction of the Amphibian species, the last paragraph confirms that the author is merely assessing the validity of a point of view.

Many thanks for the help! Here some additional tips:

For OG 109: The author suggests throughout the passage that recently reported amphibian
extinctions may have several different causes: they may be due to any number of
chance events, for example, or may simply be the result of a small population that
finds itself unable to continue under difficult conditions, whatever causes those
conditions.

For OG 110: This question asks what the passage does not say is true of endangered amphibian
species. The second paragraph discusses endangered species, stating that they are
always rare, almost always small, and, by definition, under constant threat of
extinction, which may be caused by chance events. The possibility of their
extinction, the passage states, depends only on the population size, and not
whether that population is increasing or decreasing.

For OG 111: This question asks about the organization of the passage as a whole. In the first
paragraph, the author tells about a situation that has been interpreted in a
particular way by environmentalists. The passage then proceeds to consider
whether that interpretation is valid, and while it does not come to a definitive
conclusion on that point, the final paragraph warns about the possible
consequences of not taking the action recommended by the environmentalists.

I hope this will be of some help!

for Q3...im confused between D and E

for choice D, the explanation on OG said:

but in passage:

may = probably

so why we need to have enough data to know whether it was probable?

I think you miss the overall sense of the reading.

here we are talking of endangered species and that some of them recovered and some other are still on the border line. And that the environment could be wiped out where they live or not or blah blah.........but not is stated about option D.

Infact, if you notice a lot of species have recovered, which mean that their environment is not compromised after all.

Hope this helps
_________________

Hey GMATNinja GMATNinjatwo

Can you help explain Q3 and Q6?

3. It can be inferred from the passage that the author believes which of the following to be true of the amphibian extinctions that have recently been reported?

(A) They have resulted primarily from human activities causing environmental degradation.
(B)They could probably have been prevented if timely action had been taken to protect the habitats of amphibian species.
(C) They should not come as a surprise, because amphibian populations generally have been declining for a number of years.
(D) They have probably been caused by a combination of chance events.
(E) They do not clearly constitute evidence of general environmental degradation.

I was confused between D and E. Both seem to be correct. Can you let me know your thoughts here?

6. Which of the following best describes the function of the sentence in lines 35-38?

(A) To give an example of a particular kind of study
(B) To cast doubt on an assertion made in the previous sentence
(C) To raise an objection to a view presented in the first paragraph
(D) To provide support for a view presented in the first paragraph
(E) To introduce an idea that will be countered in the following paragraph

I clearly thought the answer is Option B, below is my reasoning



- The report cannot distinguish among the possibilities
- Now the possibilities is mentioned in the above the bold statement



- with the above reasoning, i thought the answer should be clearly option B because the anecdotal report says it cannot distinguish among them.

Can you help me understand where I'm going wrong?
_________________

Hello pikolo2510,

My 2 cents:



Though the author does suggest that extinctions could have occurred due to chance events, we don't have sufficient data to prove that and also the options lists that it occurred due to a combination of chance events. May or may not be true.

The author does make a point that several factors could have led to this effect but clearly there ain't enough evidence to prove that this is case of environmental degradation.

Between D and E, E seems more plausible.






The main point was to raise an objection to the claim made in the first paragraph. The author uses modifiers such as 'if real, claims, which, in their view,' etc to show that he doesn't buy that theory. Also, he doesn't question the preceding sentence.

Passage: Amphibian Populations

Question: Purpose

The Simple Story

According to reports, certain amphibian populations are undergoing drastic decline or even extinction. Environmentalists believe that these changes are due to human activity. The passage explains how to evaluate these claims. First, it draws a distinction between a declining population and an endangered population. Then, it explains that a decline may be worse than an extinction, but may also be harmless. Finally, it concludes that there is not enough data to determine whether the amphibian population is actually declining, and whether that decline represents a crisis. However, since there is limited data, and inaction could cause serious problems, the passage argues that people should still act to protect the amphibians.

Sample Passage Map

Here is one way to map this passage. (Note: abbreviate as desired!)

P1:

- Amph declines & extinctions: bad sign?
- Env.: action needed, declines caused by humans

P2:

- Evaluate env. Claims
- Decline doesn’t = endangered

P3:

- Declines worse than extinctions
- But, some declines are okay

P4:

- Limited data
- Don’t know if amphibians are really declining?
- But: should take action now anyways


Step 1: Identify the Question

The phrase function of the sentence in the question stem indicates that this is a Purpose question.

Step 2: Find the Support

Reread the sentence mentioned in the question stem and enough of the surrounding passage to provide context.

“Distinctions must again be made among declines that are only apparent…declines that take a population to some lower but still acceptable level, and those that threaten extinction. Anecdotal reports of population decreases cannot distinguish among these possibilities, and some amphibian populations have shown strong fluctuations in the past.”

The bolded sentence above is the sentence that the question stem refers to.

Step 3: Predict an Answer

The sentence describes being unable to distinguish among possibilities. The possibilities mentioned are the various possible scenarios in which a population declines. The author describes these multiple scenarios in order to express that the environmentalists’ worst-case scenario might or might not be correct: the population decline could be dangerous, but it could also be a random fluctuation. The function of this sentence is to summarize one possible reason that the environmentalists’ belief is too pessimistic.

Step 4: Eliminate and Find a Match

(A) The sentence addresses anecdotal reports, not studies.

(B) The previous sentence serves the same purpose as the sentence referenced in the question: to note that there are multiple possible scenarios under which a population could decline.

(C) CORRECT. This sentence raises an objection to the environmentalists’ view. The environmentalists believe that there is only one possible scenario in the case of the amphibians, that of a dangerous decline caused by human activity. The sentence claims that there are multiple different possible situations, only some of which are dangerous.

(D) In this sentence, the author disagrees with the environmentalists’ view by asserting that their analysis is not the only possible one.

(E) The following paragraph agrees with the sentiment of this sentence, which is that there is not enough data available to fully analyze the causes and extent of population declines.
_________________

1. The primary purpose of the passage is to

(A) assess the validity of a certain view
(B) distinguish between two phenomena
(C) identify the causes of a problem
(D) describe a disturbing trend
(E) allay concern about a particular phenomenon

Why is B wrong? Most of the passage is explaining the difference between decline in population and extinction

5. Which of the following most accurately describes the organization of the passage?

(A) A question is raised, a distinction regarding it is made, and the question is answered.
(B) An interpretation is presented, its soundness is examined, and a warning is given.
(C) A situation is described, its consequences are analyzed, and a prediction is made.
(D) Two interpretations of a phenomenon are described, and one of them is rejected as invalid.
(E) Two methods for analyzing a phenomenon are compared, and further study of the phenomenon is recommended.

I chose E for this one, why is it wrong?

Because in 1st para it clearly says about the report and an interpretation is made. Then in the following para words like evaluate the claim indicates that the author is trying to check the soundness and in the final para it is giving a clear cut warning( If you read the last line). I hope it helps

amphibians - live in water and land such as frogs, salamanders.
P1 - decline in population of A. Could be trend toward extinction.
P2 - evaluate P1. may be extinction, may be not.
p3 - biologists view, p decline = changed ecology .why? resolved - past fluctuations
p4 - long term data facts and its effects, if its too late then what - warning.

main idea - decline in A's population is discussed. past explored, facts evaluate for this decline.

1. The primary purpose of the passage is to

(A) assess the validity of a certain view -
(B) distinguish between two phenomena
(C) identify the causes of a problem
(D) describe a disturbing trend
(E) allay concern about a particular phenomenon

------------------------------------------------------

2. It can be inferred from the passage that the author believes which of the following to be true of the environmentalists mentioned in lines 5-6?
Pre-think - E are mentioned in P1. saying that if population decline then may be a trend toward extinction. So immediate environmental action is necessary. We need to look at author's view over this. Author's view is given in P2. Author is not so sure about it.

(D) They have drawn premature conclusions concerning a crisis in amphibian populations from recent reports of declines.

-----------------------------------------------------

3. It can be inferred from the passage that the author believes which of the following to be true of the amphibian extinctions that have recently been reported?
Inferrnce question, following one of the option must be true.

(A) They have resulted primarily from human activities causing environmental degradation. --- not sure.
(B) They could probably have been prevented if timely action had been taken to protect the habitats of amphibian species. --- could be could be not.
(C) They should not come as a surprise, because amphibian populations generally have been declining for a number of years. --- but recovered too
(D) They have probably been caused by a combination of chance events. ---- may be a natural thing with them.
(E) They do not clearly constitute evidence of general environmental degradation. --- true, not too extreme.

-----------------------------------------------------

4. According to the passage, each of the following is true of endangered amphibian species EXCEPT:
P2 has described a lot about this.
(D) Those with decreasing populations are the most likely candidates for immediate extinction. --- all correct except this .

----------------------------------------------------

5. Which of the following most accurately describes the organization of the passage?
refer to notes. --- a view is presented, evaluated, same view presented with diff angles, facts given and a warning

(A) A question is raised, a distinction regarding it is made, and the question is answered. ---- no question raised.
(B) An interpretation is presented, its soundness is examined, and a warning is given. --- this one is one same lines.
(C) A situation is described, its consequences are analyzed, and a prediction is made. --- 1 and 2 is right but last part is warning not prediction.
(D) Two interpretations of a phenomenon are described, and one of them is rejected as invalid. --- far from reality.
(E) Two methods for analyzing a phenomenon are compared, and further study of the phenomenon is recommended. ---- no.
----------------------------------------------------

6. Which of the following best describes the function of the sentence in lines 35-38 [Anecdotal reports of population decreases cannot distinguish among these possibilities, and some amphibian populations have shown strong fluctuations in the past.]?

Pre-thinking - This is presented to weaken the reports and conclusions drawn from that report presented in P1.

(C) To raise an objection to a view presented in the first paragraph ---- on the same line.

(A) To give an example of a particular kind of study
(B) To cast doubt on an assertion made in the previous sentence
(C) To raise an objection to a view presented in the first paragraph
(D) To provide support for a view presented in the first paragraph
(E) To introduce an idea that will be countered in the following paragraph

dewdrops909

2. It can be inferred from the passage that the author believes which of the following to be true of the environmentalists mentioned in lines 5-6?
Pre-think - E are mentioned in P1. saying that if population decline then may be a trend toward extinction. So immediate environmental action is necessary. We need to look at author's view over this. Author's view is given in P2. Author is not so sure about it.

(D) They have drawn premature conclusions concerning a crisis in amphibian populations from recent reports of declines.

If still not clear .... can you share your thinking around option C and why other choices are wrong ?

Hi,

I have a confusion between choice C and D. I think even option C can??be the correct answer. Option C states 'Their certainty that population declines in general are caused by environmental degradation is not warranted.' As per my understanding, this is what the author believes about these environmentalists since?? in paragraph 3 the author talks about different types of population declines(habitual cycles being one of them). So, it's not necessarily true that if there is a population decline, environmental degradation would be the cause. So on what grounds can I eliminate optoin C?

Thanks

hazelnut
aragonn

In question two
These declines, if real, may be signs of a general trend toward extinction, and many environmentalists have claimed that immediate environmental action is necessary to remedy this “amphibian crisis,” which, in their view, is an indicator of general and catastrophic environmental degradation due to human activity.
This clearly shows that these environmentalists believed specifically that degradation is the reason. SO the correct answer seems C

In D They have drawn premature conclusions concerning a crisis in amphibian populations from recent reports of declines.
It might be the case that the environmentalists were concerned only of the decline and not the extinction. So, the answer doesnt seem correct.
Please help out.

singh8891 - What you have underlined is not the view of author, but it is the view of ' many environmentalists'. Author's view is given in P2. Author is not so sure about it. this is covered in P2. D is on these lines. Let me know if you need more clarity.