The first paragraph intends to explain some serious threats faced by certain marine species and to link those impacts to certain human practices. It seems to explain the threats to emphasize the severity of such impacts caused directly by certain practices.
The second paragraph introduces a new finding that reveals even more serious impact of the human practices than what had been known so far. It goes on the explain the threat in order to underscore the seriousness of the situation.
Question 1:
1. The author's primary objective in discussing hypoxic zones is to explain how they
A. compromise the health of marine ecosystems.
The author doesn't talk about health marine ecosystem in general but addresses the cases in which hypoxic zones affect certain species especially fish species.
B. contribute to the extinction of certain marine life.As discussed above, this should be the one.
C. alter the chemical composition of ocean habitats.
Even though we can infer/assume so, this is not the "primary objective". The focus is on how hypoxic zone leads to extinction.
D. have been linked to altered gene expression in fish.
Again, though we can infer/assume so, this is not the "primary objective". Nevertheless, "gene inhibition" is what the author stated but "gene alteration" is nowhere mentioned.
E. are depleted of oxygen over long periods of time.
Apart from the fact that there's no hint about "long periods of time", long time is not the focus of the passage.
Question 2:
2. The passage implies that fish that can survive in hypoxic zones
A. have developed a tolerance for anoxia as the species evolved.
Anoxia is nowhere mentioned/implied in the passage.
B. belong to species that are indigenous to less oxygenated areas of the ocean.
Indigeneity of the impacted species is never talked about
C. suffer damage that is more apparent in their offspring than in themselves.Yes, the second para talks about the impact on gender specificity, fertility & sexuality of the offspring even though their parents, which were able to tolerate and survive in "dead zones", could reproduce successfully. Note that this question specifically asks about those
survive in dead zone, not the ones escape dead zones.
D. must move to healthier waters in order to reproduce.
Though it's stated that some fish species move to healthier waters, "must move to reproduce" is meant nowhere. The second para even talks about species reproducing in the "dead zone" itself.
E. rely on a biological self-defense mechanism to compensate for the oxygen depletion.
Again, "a biological self-defense mechanism" is nowhere implied in the passage.
Question 3:
3. The first paragraph primarily performs which of the following functions in the passage?
As discussed in the beginning, while the first para mentions/implies some of the options given below, the function of the para, in entirety, is to explain some serious threats faced by certain marine species and link those impacts to certain human practices.
A. It links compositional changes in ocean water to irresponsible human behavior.
Though it implies such a causal relation, the para intends mainly to link the impact on species to human behavior.
B. It explains how environmental damage can cause effects that last for generations.
The first para doesn't suggest that the effect can "last for generations" as only the impact on first generation is all what's talked about. Nothing is mentioned about what happens to the offspring, if any is birthed.
C. It stresses that oxygen levels are paramount in determining ocean survival rates.
The author doesn't address "Ocean survival rate" in general.
D. It pinpoints the cause of species destruction in specific marine habitats.Right. The author attempts to explain and link the destructive effects in dead zones to the human behavior(the primary cause).
E. It argues that survival in the changing ocean depends on genetic factors.
First para never talks about any genetic factor.