Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized for You
we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Track Your Progress
every week, we’ll send you an estimated GRE score based on your performance
Practice Pays
we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Your score will improve and your results will be more realistic
Is there something wrong with our timer?Let us know!
Over the last 150 years, large stretches of salmon habitat have been e
[#permalink]
21 Nov 2022, 03:10
1
Expert Reply
A
B
C
D
E
A
B
C
D
E
A
B
C
D
E
A
B
C
D
E
A
B
C
D
E
A
B
C
D
E
Over the last 150 years, large stretches of salmon habitat have been eliminated by human activity: mining, livestock grazing, timber harvesting, and agriculture as well as recreational and urban development. The numerical effect is obvious: there are fewer salmon in degraded regions than in pristine ones; however, habitat loss also has the potential to reduce genetic diversity. This is most evident in cases where it results in the extinction of entire salmon populations. Indeed, most analysts believe that some kind of environmental degradation underlies the demise of many extinct salmon populations. Although some rivers have been recolonized, the unique genes of the original populations have been lost.
Large-scale disturbances in one locale also have the potential to alter the genetic structure of populations in neighboring areas, even if those areas have pristine habitats. Why? Although the homing instinct of salmon to their natal stream is strong, a fraction of the fish returning from the sea (rarely more than 15 percent) stray and spawn in nearby streams. Low levels of straying are crucial, since the process provides a source of novel genes and a mechanism by which a location can be repopulated should the fish there disappear. Yet high rates of straying can be problematic because misdirected fish may interbreed with the existing stock to such a degree that any local adaptations that are present become diluted. Straying rates remain relatively low when environmental conditions are stable, but can increase dramatically when streams suffer severe disturbance. The 1980 volcanic eruption of Mount Saint Helens, for example, sent mud and debris into several tributaries of the Columbia River. For the next couple of years, steelhead trout (a species included among the salmonids) returning from the sea to spawn were forced to find alternative streams. As a consequence, their rates of straying, initially 16 percent, rose to more than 40 percent overall.
Although no one has quantified changes in the rate of straying as a result of the disturbances caused by humans, there is no reason to suspect that the effect would be qualitatively different than what was seen in the aftermath of the Mount Saint Helens eruption. Such a dramatic increase in straying from damaged areas to more pristine streams results in substantial gene flow, which can in turn lower the overall fitness of subsequent generations.
Question 1
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Question Stats:
91% (03:11) correct
9% (02:09) wrong based on 11 sessions
HideShow
timer Statistics
1. The primary purpose of the passage is to
(A) argue against a conventional explanation for the extinction of certain salmon populations and suggest an alternative (B) correct a common misunderstanding about the behavior of salmon in response to environmental degradation caused by human activity (C) compare the effects of human activity on salmon populations with the effects of natural disturbances on salmon populations (D) differentiate the particular effects of various human activities on salmon habitats (E) describe how environmental degradation can cause changes in salmon populations that extend beyond a numerical reduction
Question 2
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Question Stats:
14% (03:31) correct
86% (02:29) wrong based on 7 sessions
HideShow
timer Statistics
2. It can be inferred from the passage that the occasional failure of some salmon to return to their natal streams in order to spawn provides a mechanism by which
(A) pristine streams that are near polluted streams become polluted themselves (B) the particular adaptations of a polluted stream’s salmon population can be preserved without dilution (C) the number of salmon in pristine habitats decreases relative to the number in polluted streams (D) an environmentally degraded stream could be recolonized by new salmon populations should the stream recover (E) the extinction of the salmon populations that spawn in polluted streams is accelerated
Question 3
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Question Stats:
38% (00:54) correct
63% (01:26) wrong based on 8 sessions
HideShow
timer Statistics
3. According to the passage, human activity has had which of the following effects on salmon populations?
(A) An increase in the size of salmon populations in some previously polluted rivers (B) A decline in the number of salmon in some rivers (C) A decrease in the number straying salmon in some rivers (D) A decrease in the gene flow between salmon populations that spawn in polluted streams and populations that spawn in pristine streams (E) A decline in the vulnerability of some salmon populations to the effects of naturally occurring habitat destruction
Question 4
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Question Stats:
29% (00:39) correct
71% (00:59) wrong based on 7 sessions
HideShow
timer Statistics
4.The author mentions the “aftermath of the Mount Saint Helens eruption” most likely in order to
(A) provide an example of the process that allows the repopulation of rivers whose indigenous salmon population has become extinct (B) indicate the extent to which the disturbance of salmon habitat by human activity in one stream might affect the genetic structure of salmon populations elsewhere (C) provide a standard of comparison against which the impact of human activity on the gene flow among salmon populations should be measured (D) show how salmons’ homing instinct can be impaired as a result of severe environmental degradation of their natal streams (E) show why straying rates in salmon populations remain generally low except when spawning streams suffer severe environmental disturbance
Question 5
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Question Stats:
25% (00:52) correct
75% (01:28) wrong based on 4 sessions
HideShow
timer Statistics
5. The author's argument that increased straying can "lower the overall fitness of subsequent generations" (see hightlited text) is based on which of the following assumptions?
(A) A disturbance of salmonid spawning streams caused by human activity could increase the straying rate of affected salmonid populations as much as the aftermath of the Mount Saint Helens eruption did. (B) In the streams in which the straying salmonids spawn, these straying salmonids would amount to no more than 40 percent of the total spawning population (C) Salmonids in some streams benefit from particular local adaptions. (D) Nonenvironmental factors have no effect on salmonid straying rates. (E) At least some of the streams in which straying salmonids would spawn are pristine, affected by neither natural nor artificial disturbances.
Question 6
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
100% (01:02) wrong based on 3 sessions
HideShow
timer Statistics
6. Which of the following does the author mention as support for the view that environmental disturbances caused by human activity could increase straying rates?
(A) The existence of salmon populations in rivers where the elimination of salmon habitat by human activity had previously made the fish extinct (B) The results of studies measuring the impact on straying rates of habitat loss caused by human activity (C) The potential for disturbances in one environment to cause the introduction of novel genes into salmon populations in neighboring areas (D) The weaknesses in the view that the extinction of entire salmon populations is the only mechanism by which human destruction of salmon habitat reduces genetic diversity in salmon (E) The absence of any reason for believing that disturbances brought about by human activitiy would differ in their effects from comparable disturbances brought about by natural causes
Re: Over the last 150 years, large stretches of salmon habitat have been e
[#permalink]
26 Nov 2022, 07:09
Expert Reply
Passage map: Overall the passage describes genetic diversity as another unintended consequence of severed environmental disruptions to Salmon Habitats P1: to describe the extent of the problem and non-obvious p2: To argue that large scale disturbances in one locale impact another p3: To state the potential human cause of straying
Q1 E is correct - quite clear from the 1st - 2nd sentence in P1 A - no conventional explanation therefore incorrect B - no common misunderstanding therefore incorrect C - no, not to compare, but to argue that humans can have the same effect D - no, the argument routinely refers to one environmental effect and humans as one potential cause of this effect
Q2 Inference -refer back and infer. We are told that some salmon stray to other streams and that this straying is crucial as it provides a source of novel genes and a way by which a location, presumably the disturbed one, can be repopulated if the fish in that disturbed population disappear.
We are then asked to infer what straying provides: A - it does not state anywhere that pristine streams become polluted by straying populations -incorrect B - no, we are in fact told the opposite - that dilution occurs. C - no. We aren't told anything on the population numerical impact D - Yes. As we are told, VERY INDIRECTLY, "a location can be repopulated". E - No. We have no basis for this statement.
Q3 Detail - refer back. We are told of the impact on human activity in the first and last paras. The obvious impact is the numerical effect: decrease in population of polluted environments. A is incorrect- we are only told that the populace decreases in polluted rivers, nothing of an "increase" in "previously polluted" streams B is correct - this statement - " the decline in the number of salmon in SOME rivers" (the polluted ones) is the stated effect C is incorrect because we aren't given a quantitative link between straying and human impact D is incorrect because we are in fact told the opposite in the last para - "substantial gene flow" E is incorrect because we are told that humans' increase the vulnerability of salmons by increasing the likelihood of their populace straying
Q5 Which of the following must be true in order for the argument to be true? That's the question. The argument: A dramatic increase in straying from damaged streams to more pristine streams increases gene flow, lowering the fitness of subsequent generations.
A - This is not required for the argument to be true because humans could SIMPLY cause straying e.g. 1-2% straying rate and the fitness of subsequent generations of the salmon impacted could still be lowered B - Again, this quantity is not necessarily assumed in arguing that the overall fitness decreases C must be true because if it weren't true then it wouldn't matter if salmons inter-bred. The argument is that "fitness" (or how good something is) essentially decreases, so if decreasing is bad, what must be true? Keeping genes pure must be true. D is incorrect - NO - humans are PART of the cause, not ALL of the cause E is incorrect - no this is the opposite. What's inferred by E is that some of the straying salmon DONT decrease the fitness.
Q6 The potential for humans to impact straying is discussed in P3 by the statement - "although NO ONE has QUANTIFIED changes in the rate of straying as a result of...humans" "there is no reason to believe that the effect would be qualitatively different".
A is not mentioned or supported B is incorrect because no such studies exist C is mentioned in the passage, but it is not mentioned in support of the argument that humans increase or cause straying rates. For this reason, C is incorrect. D is incorrect. Firstly it is the weakness in the view that humans ONLY decrease populations - the whole premise of the passage is that HUMANS DO OTHER THINGS i.e. "increase Straying". Second, "extinction" generally isn't supported. Third, destruction actually INCREASES genetic diversity (mixing). E is incorrect - The way it is worded can be off-putting. But E essentially states that the "absence" of any "reason (evidence)" does not negate the argument that humans cause straying.
gmatclubot
Re: Over the last 150 years, large stretches of salmon habitat have been e [#permalink]
21 Nov 2022, 03:10
91% (03:11) correct
