apovit
Firstly thanks for starting the RC Butler series
SajjadAhmad I have a doubt in question 3:
the author implies that foreign ecosystems have which potential effect on shorebirds? OA D
A They can make a bird more vulnerable to predators.
B They can expose shorebirds to foreign toxins.
C They can diminish a bird’s ability to navigate.
D They can lead to a reduction in the bird’s weight.
E They can cause a bird to become separated from its flock.
A recent study found that, out of those shorebirds that were unable to migrate, some weighed as much as 20% less than the average migrating bird of their species.
How can we say that the action of unable to migrate lead to a reduction in the weight for the shorebirds.Please explain.
Thanks
apovitFirstly , there is nowhere in the passage which may suggest that " unable to migrate LEADS to reduction !! ...rather it is the opposite !!! reduction in weight that is less fat intake leads to unabl to migrate
towards he question :
I'll explain to you step by step !!!
First lets ubderstad first para :
Quote:
The ‘trophic contamination hypothesis’ posits that shorebirds accumulate industrial and urban pollution at stopover sites, toxins that are subsequently released in sudden high doses as fat is burned during migratory flights, disrupting the bird’s ability to make migratory decisions.
understand: "TCH" states a hypothesis . It says that Accumulation of pollution in shorebids leads to intake of more toxins simultaneously with burning of fat.. It measn that when the bird is migrating obviously it needs energy to do so and hence it needs fat...but as it passes from the "stopover sites" it intakes toxins too ...now this consequently leads to bird's ABILITY to make mig decision !!
map : migration >> fat burning>> passing from pollution >> intake of toxins>> disruption in ability !!
Quote:
For example, large contaminant doses might hamper refueling by altering the satiation signal in shorebirds so that they do not accumulate sufficient fat for migration.
Understand: Now the author puts forward an example of the hypothesis (to explain) . he says when the bird intakes LARGE DOSES of toxins the bird might feel that it is actually satiated ( feeling that i am full or satisfied :food wise) ..But due to this FALSE SATIATION the bird may not actually consume enough calories to make its migration !!
Quote:
A recent
study found that, out of those shorebirds that were unable to migrate, some weighed as much as 20% less than the average migrating bird of their species.
Understand : Author here presents the "findings" of a study: out of the shorebirds
that were unable t migrate (please note this modifier) , some weighted as 20% less than the avg shorebird (general)
Quote:
Whether
such findings are a result of shorebirds suffering from trophic contamination, or whether such birds simply cut their migrations short by landing in a foreign ecosystem, is unlikely to be resolved until further studies are conducted.
Understand : first of all always make note when there are pronouns (referances) : here "such findings" refers back to the findings the author present in earlier sentence (study FOUND that) ... so the author claims that the explanation behing "the findings : less weight" is due to Tropic contamination or by landing on foreign eco is not clear !!
Para summary : A hypothesus is presneted and explained with the hel nof an example. Finding of a study are presented. Claim is made abou the explanation about the findings of the study !!
3. the author implies that foreign ecosystems
have which potential effect on shorebirds?
Note that the "Foreign econsystem" was stated as POSSIBLE explanatio to the finding of the study !!! so if this the explanation then in other words this is the cause.. and then what is the effect of this??? it is the reduced weight .. remember the question states "potential" effect... So we dont need conclusive answer !!
A They can make a bird
more vulnerable to predators.
not mentioned
B They can expose shorebirds to foreign toxins.
- the foregin ecosystem is not linked to toxins ... ON THE CONTRARY it is alternative explnation to toxic contamination !!! if even forein lands had toxic things hy would author make it a distinct piunt???mBy giving an alternative to toxic pollution he wants to say that the "foreign ECOSYSTEM" which may imply the diet may change accoding to the availability of food on the foreign land !!!
C They can diminish a bird’s ability to navigate.
- NOT a direct link !!!
D They can lead to a reduction in the bird’s weight.
- This is the direct potentioal effect becasue author makes it ckear by trying to provide explanations for this finding !!
E They can cause a bird to become
separated from its flock.- useless