Manhattan RC: desert tortoise

[Jimmy]

The Manhattan CAT passage is below. My question is related to the following question:

The primary intent of the passage is to do which of the following?
Describe the lifecycle of a species
Advocate future actions
Discuss a problem
Evaluate past actions
Criticize the government

I answered C, but the OA is B. My reasoning was that only the final paragraph discusses future actions that should be taken. In my opinion, a large majority (minus the last paragraph) discusses a problem. Any insight into how one should attack this? The typically strategy is looking at the entire passage, but here it looks like we are only looking at the last.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Despite its 1989 designation as a threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act, the desert tortoise, Gopherus agassizii, has declined in numbers by ninety percent since the 1980s. Although federal protection made it illegal to harm desert tortoises or remove them from the wild of the southwestern North American deserts, this measure has been insufficient to reverse the species’ decline, and further intervention is required.
Recovery has been slow, partly due to the desert tortoise’s low reproductive potential. Females breed only after reaching full size at fifteen to twenty years of age, and even then may only lay eggs when adequate forage is available. Although the number of eggs in each clutch varies, and each female might lay a few clutches in one season, the average mature female produces only a few eggs annually. From these precious eggs, hatchlings emerge wearing soft shells that will harden slowly into protective armor over the next five years. The vulnerable young are entirely neglected by adult tortoises, and only five percent ultimately reach adulthood.
Predators are blamed for most tortoise deaths; ravens, specifically, are estimated to cause more than half of the juvenile tortoise deaths in the Mojave Desert. Tortoise eggs and juveniles, with their delicate shells, can fall prey to many birds, mammals, and other reptiles. For protection from predators, as well as from desert temperature extremes, tortoises of all ages burrow into the earth. However, if rabbits and rodents are scarce, larger mammalian predators may dig tortoises out of their burrows, devouring even mature tortoises despite their hardened shells.
Even with current protections from human interference, the desert tortoise faces a tough recovery, so additional measures must be taken. First, the limited habitat of desert tortoises, with soil suitable for their burrows, must be protected from development. Next, urban expansion often has the unintended effect of increasing raven populations, so aggressive measures to control the birds are necessary to increase desert tortoise hatchling survival rates. Finally, released captive tortoises typically perish, and can pass upper respiratory tract disease into the wild population with devastating consequences, so continuing education of pet tortoise owners is essential.

[Guest]

Okay, between B & C.

Looking at the structure of the passage -

First para - look at the last line, it says this measure is insufficient and needs further intervention - that in a way IS the intent of the passage. So while he does discuss the problem in great detail, especially in para 2 &3, he goes further than that , he uses the discussion of the problem to advocate future action to deal with the problem.

Again in the 4th passage the first line says - even with current protection...additional measures must be taken and then goes on the detail the future actions required. So this is stated both in the 1st and the last para. Though I agree that the middle does not touch advocating actions, but thats how you advocate something, explaining the problem , giving reasons for and then advocating..

A better, clearer answer choice could have been - To discuss a problem and advocate future actions, but I guesss that would have made the answer choice too easy ! :P

[jwinawer]

Nice response, guest! I agree 100%. Para 1 sets up the purpose in the last sentence. Para 2 & 3 provide enough details to support the conclusion, argued forcefully in para 4, which is that action is needed. Notice how clear the end of para 1 and all of para 4 are:

"further intervention is required. "
"...so additional measures must be taken."
"...must be protected..."
"...aggressive measures to control the birds are necessary..."
"...so continuing education of pet tortoise owners is essential."

I would say that primary purpose questions more often have answers of the flavor "to discuss..." than "to advocate...." But this one is def an advocate passage. That kind of answer will usually be right ONLY if the passage uses clear and strong language advocating something. This passage does just that.

[tanyatomar]

Hi,
Another question from this passage:

Q: previous efforts to protect tortoise are regarded by author with
a. weary skeptism
b. complete satisfaction
c. implied oposition
d. qualified approval
e. overt disdain.
OA: D
reading the first para i thought its somewhere near "weary skeptism" ..
but definately not "qualified approval".. i think author does not support the effort and thinks that the effort is not sufficient.. then how come they r saying its approval??

please clarify this doubt
thanks in advance :)
Tanya

[jnelson0612]

Hi,
Another question from this passage:

Q: previous efforts to protect tortoise are regarded by author with
a. weary skeptism
b. complete satisfaction
c. implied oposition
d. qualified approval
e. overt disdain.
OA: D
reading the first para i thought its somewhere near "weary skeptism" ..
but definately not "qualified approval".. i think author does not support the effort and thinks that the effort is not sufficient.. then how come they r saying its approval??

please clarify this doubt
thanks in advance :)
Tanya

Good question! "weary skepticism" is fairly harsh; that would be saying that the author just doesn't believe in the previous protections. That's actually not the case here. The author wants to keep the previous protections and add new ones. Thus, the "qualified approval". The author does "approve" of the previous protections (and thus wants to keep them) but this approval is "qualified" (as in, not very enthusiastic) because the author thinks they don't go far enough.

I hope that this helps!