manish8242
In Q3 the author says we need to find which one is more imp factor for whale entanglement. Doesn't it means he want to find the primary cause then find strategies according to that?
And how can we say that we will require 'single combination' of strategy to address this problem? What if we found the 'EXACT' cause of our problem which is not yet known then we can mitigate it using one specific solution so we will not require a combination of strategies. Also no cause is fully confirmed yet so we cant say whether they are multiple different cause or single cause. What the author discusses are two possible causes not the confirmed causes.
manish8242 Let me help clarify why the passage actually supports option D rather than C.
Understanding Your ConcernYou're absolutely right that the passage emphasizes understanding causes first. The key sentences are:
- "Despite extensive research, the factors influencing whale entanglement remain poorly understood."
- "Addressing the issue comprehensively requires a deeper understanding of entanglement drivers."
- "Determining whether feeding behavior, curiosity, or other factors play a more significant role will guide future conservation efforts."
This naturally makes option C look attractive: "Conduct further research to pinpoint the
primary causes."
The Critical Distinction: Primary Cause vs. Multiple Risk FactorsHere's where careful reading reveals why D is correct:
1. The passage identifies MULTIPLE risk factors, not one primary cause:- Feeding behavior (bubble-netting)
- Natural curiosity
- "other factors" (explicitly mentioned)
Notice the final paragraph says:
"Determining whether feeding behavior, curiosity, or other factors play a more significant role..."The passage isn't suggesting we find
THE one primary cause (as option C claims). It's discussing understanding how
multiple factors contribute
relative to each other.
2. The passage endorses multiple existing strategies:"Some initiatives focus on gear modifications... Additionally, efforts are underway to develop and deploy acoustic deterrents... While these efforts hold promise..."The phrase
"hold promise" is positive endorsement. The passage isn't saying "stop these and just research." It's saying these multiple strategies are valuable.
3. The keyword is "comprehensively":"Addressing the issue comprehensively requires a deeper understanding of entanglement drivers.""Comprehensively" means addressing ALL aspects of a complex problem. Since multiple risk factors exist (feeding, curiosity, other factors), a comprehensive approach requires
multiple strategies targeting these various risk factors.
Addressing Your "What If" ScenarioYou asked:
"What if we found the EXACT cause... then we can mitigate it using one specific solution?"This is logical reasoning, but notice what the passage actually suggests:
- The passage presents multiple proposed causes (not hypothesizing there's just one to find)
- The passage says determining which factors play "a more significant role" - this implies multiple factors of varying importance, not one single cause
- The passage already describes multiple strategies that "hold promise" - if only one cause existed, why would multiple different strategies show promise?
The passage's logic is:
Multiple risk factors exist → Need deeper understanding of how each contributes → Comprehensive approach requires combination of strategies addressing these various factorsWhy Option C Falls ShortOption C says:
"Conduct further research to pinpoint the primary causes"Problems with C:
- Uses "primary" (suggesting one main cause), but passage discusses multiple factors
- Focuses only on research, ignoring that passage endorses current strategies as "holding promise"
- The passage doesn't say "research first, then act" - it says current multi-strategy efforts are good AND we need deeper understanding for comprehensive solutions
Why Option D is CorrectOption D:
"Implement a combination of mitigation strategies addressing various risk factors."This matches the passage because:
- "Combination of... strategies" aligns with the passage describing multiple approaches (gear modifications AND acoustic deterrents) that "hold promise"
- "Various risk factors" reflects the passage's identification of multiple factors (feeding, curiosity, "other factors")
- "Addressing" these factors comprehensively requires multiple strategies, not just research or a single solution
- This interpretation is consistent with the passage saying deeper understanding will "guide" efforts - guide which combination of strategies to emphasize, not replace multiple strategies with one
The Bottom LineThe passage isn't presenting an either/or between "research OR implement strategies." It's saying:
- Multiple risk factors exist (confirmed)
- Multiple strategies show promise (confirmed)
- Need deeper understanding to guide comprehensive approach (confirmed)
- Comprehensive solution = combination of strategies for various risk factors (what D states)
Your instinct about research being important is correct - but the passage frames research as supporting a
multi-strategy comprehensive approach, not as finding one primary cause to target with one solution.
Hope this addresses your doubt!