Seemingly inconsequential changes in sea temperature due to global warming eventually result in declines in fish and ...
dfolaveNovember 28, 2015
Answer E
Is answer E wrong because it generalizes to "all organisms" when it is only mentioning fish and birds? Why should we conclude that answer C reference to "large" animals refers specifically to the fish and birds?
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
Hi, @dfolave, thank you for your question. The phrase "zooplankton feed upon phytoplankton" establishes a food chain--that is, the fact that much smaller organisms (e.g., phytoplankton) are consumed by larger organisms (e.g., zooplankton). This, in turn, is meant to support the overall conclusion of the stimulus, which is the first sentence--that is, that "seemingly inconsequential changes in sea temperature due to global warming eventually result in declines in fish and seabird populations."
Yes, answer choice (E) is much too broad a statement. The phrase we are being asked about--re: zooplankton and phytoplankton--is NOT offered in support of the sweeping claim that global warming poses a threat to ALL organisms.
Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any additional questions.
brittneymfrey@gmail.comAugust 4, 2018
I ruled out C b/c of the word larger- what if you did not know the size difference between zooplankton and phytoplankton.
AnitaAugust 6, 2018
In this case, it helps to infer that zooplankton are larger than phytoplankton, but it matters more that larger species feed on zooplankton, which feed on phytoplankton, which means that a change in phytoplankton results in a change in larger species (the ones that feed on zooplankton.) You can create a sort of change that goes Changes in water temperature -> Changes in phytoplankton -> Changes in zooplankton -> Changes in larger species. Does that help?
jarebalo20March 22, 2020
I had the same question and thanks for the Great explanation !!
