Could anyone please answer this question with explanation?
1 Like
option B : it is mentioned in the passage.
option c: no evidence , even they will sustain if they get large enough habitat
I also thought same, but the answer is C.
Its written in the last line that their current habitat size isn’t adequate enough to be able to support them. Think of it this way if humans are about to go extinct and even if there are sufficient number of men and women remaining to prevent their impending demise, do u really think it will be possible without an environment with sufficient oxygen, food, or appropriate environment temperature? Also its asking for us to draw a conclusion based upon the facts provided, not restate one.
could u provide the source?
I downloaded it.
A) no evidence/ info about the quality of habitat
B) no, the passage contradicts this => “their current habitat is not large enough to support any more of these animals” → 250 > 100
C) correct;
they need 2 things:
#1 population of 250 for self-sustaining
#2 larger habitat to support more than 100 animals
=> even if they procreate and reach levels of 250, the not large enough habitat will kill them, thus reducing their numbers below the reached 250s
=> “unless” => a necessary condition, must be met (as explained above)
D) the levels can increase much more than 100s, but will eventually fall to 100s. Hence, the potential “must be true” statement (option D) => “will never increase much beyond its current level” can be false
E) no such evidence. more in numbers does NOT mean larger habitat