Passage A suggests that purple loosestrife has had a disastrous effect on nature, (5-23) while passage B states that the claim that the "war on purple loosestrife" is not actually done on behalf of the wellbeing of nature, but instead because purple loosestrife threatens the economics of exploiting preferred species, which will reduce hunting, trapping, and recreation revenues, (55-65).
We are looking for the answer choice that weakens passage B, while supporting passage A.
Answer choice (A) does just that. We know that both passage A and B agree that purple loosestrife has caused localized population reduction (10-12; 53-55). If it is true that localized population reduction is usually a precursor to widespread endangerment of species, then passage is (A) correct in stating that purple loosestrife must be contained because it threatens the wellbeing of the environment. Further, passage (B) can no longer hold its claim that the "war against purple loosestrife" is not being conducted on behalf of nature.
Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
amfFebruary 27, 2020
But even if there is widespread endangerment, how do we know that B can no longer hold its claim that the war against PL is not being conducted on behalf of nature? What if it is still being conducted for the hunting economies? I do not see how this weakens passage B. Please explain. Thank you!
colefanninghaagAugust 5, 2021
^^ I agree with this. Can someone explain please? Just because it's leading to more endangerment doesn't mean it's not still being done on behalf of economic interests
RaviFebruary 6, 2022
@colefanninghaag, in passage B, the author argued that those who advocated controlling the spread of purple loosestrife were exaggerating the threat the loosestrife posed. To provide support for this, she mentions that the canvasback is the only waterfowl endangered by the loosestrife (in lines 50-55). In passage A, the author claims that the threat of purple loosestrife is very serious, and they support this by mentioning the serious reductions in waterfowl in lines 10-12. With A, if localized population reduction precedes widespread endangerment of a species, then the threat to canvasbacks is much more serious. This boosters passage A's argument that the purple loosestrife's impact has been very bad, and it weakens passage B's argument that the reduction is not much of an issue.
