Quote:
In 1990, botanical conservationists were sent to Madagascar, tasked with saving a declining population of a rare flowering shrub found sporadically in a single 20-acre tract of forest. Because this shrub can survive only in environments in which it is the predominant plant, the goal was to start with a densely populated 5-acre plot and then section off an increasingly larger area of forest once the shrub had achieved a sustainable rate of growth. By 2000, the project was abandoned, the conservationists having failed to increase the size of the original plot. Yet a decade later, the project was hailed a success, and the shrub was no longer seen as a threatened species in the area.
Which of the following, if true, best explains why the project was later considered a success?
(A) A previously unknown pollinator of the shrub was discovered in the early 2000s.
(B) In the 1990s, deforestation led to encroachment of the experimental plot, after which the land was left untouched.
(C) The vitality of the surviving shrubs in 2010 was demonstrated to have improved significantly, as measured by the percentage of pollinated flowers per shrub, from levels observed in 1990.
(D) Several animal species endemic to the island, their own populations threatened, took refuge in the experimental plot once it was abandoned, and by 2010, most of these species were thriving in the area.
(E) Shortly before 2010, a compound derived from the leaves of the shrub was approved for use in pharmaceuticals, and the process of gaining governmental approval for new medical drugs is 10 years.
Notice that the argument implies that from 1990 to 2000 there was no benefit achieved as the conservationists failed to increase the plot size and the shrub was densely populated in only this plot. However by 2010 this project was a deemed a success and the shrub was no longer seen as a threatened species. This could be because of the following reasons (prethinking) -
1. Some new factors came into the mix (weather, water, nutrients in soil, symbiotic nature of being surrounded by shrubs etc) and the shrubs reacted well to the same.
2. Probably the time that they took to react was more than 10 years and thus in 20 years there was significant improvement. They may still be behaving how they were in isolation even when the conservationists created a densely populated plot and perhaps only with time were they able to react well to the change.
(A) A previously unknown pollinator of the shrub was discovered in the early 2000s.
-> Was the aim to identify unique/ unkown pollinators? No.
(B) In the 1990s, deforestation led to encroachment of the experimental plot, after which the land was left untouched.
->Does this impact the conclusion that the shrub was no longer seen as a threatened species in the area? No.
(C) The vitality of the surviving shrubs in 2010 was demonstrated to have improved significantly, as measured by the percentage of pollinated flowers per shrub, from levels observed in 1990.
-> Yes - Similar to prethinking point 2.
(D) Several animal species endemic to the island, their own populations threatened, took refuge in the experimental plot once it was abandoned, and by 2010, most of these species were thriving in the area.
-> This does not impact the conclusion that the shrub was no longer seen as a threatened species in the area.
(E) Shortly before 2010, a compound derived from the leaves of the shrub was approved for use in pharmaceuticals, and the process of gaining governmental approval for new medical drugs is 10 years
-> So? Does this mean they were no longer threatened species? No.