Solution
We need to find what action the author would most likely support based on the passage's main argument.
Step-by-step process: The passage shows that climate change is the root cause disrupting the subnivium ecosystem. The author explains how shorter snow seasons and rain-on-snow events are making this critical habitat colder and less stable. Sowe need to find the option that addresses this core problem.
From passage: "Research has shown that the snow season (the period when snow is more likely than rain) has become shorter since 1970. When rain falls on snow, it increases the density of the snow and reduces its insulative capacity."
Thought process: Author identifies climate change as main threat -> climate change shortens snow season and causes rain-on-snow -> this makes subnivium colder and less protective -> species suffer and die. So the author would want to fix the source of the problem, not just treat symptoms.
Option analysis:
🟠Option 1 -> partial-truth -> Snow machines could help locally with the 8-inch requirement, but this ignores the density problem and climate change root cause. Would be like putting band-aids on a broken leg.
🟢 Option 2 -> correct -> Directly addresses the core problem the author identifies. Climate change is disrupting the subnivium, so government action to curb climate change attacks the source.
🟠Option 3 -> scope-error -> Adding nutrients misses the point completely. The passage shows nutrients release naturally when subnivium works properly. The real problem is species dying from cold, not lack of nutrients.
🟠Option 4 -> degree-error -> While shrubs do help retain snow (passage mentions this), this is a tiny fix for a massive climate problem. Like using a small umbrella in a hurricane.
Key insight: The author spends most of the passage explaining how climate change disrupts the subnivium system. Only option 2 tackles this fundamental cause rather than just treating symptoms.
More from this set:
Question 7
Question 10