CAT — Nature And Environment RC
20 questions, free to view. Click any question to see the answer and explanation.
RESIDENTS of Lozère, a hilly department in southern France, recite complaints familiar to many rural corners of Europe. In remote hamlets and villages, with names such as Le Bacon and Le Bacon Vieux, mayors grumble about a lack of local schools, jobs, or phone and internet connections. Farmers of grazing animals add another concern: the return of wolves. Eradicated from France last century, the predators are gradually creeping back to more forests and hillsides. "The wolf must be taken in hand," said an aspiring parliamentarian, Francis Palombi, when pressed by voters in an election campaign early this summer. Tourists enjoy visiting a wolf park in Lozère, but farmers fret over their livestock and their livelihoods. . . .
As early as the ninth century, the royal office of the Luparii—wolf-catchers—was created in France to tackle the predators. Those official hunters (and others) completed their job in the 1930s, when the last wolf disappeared from the mainland. Active hunting and improved technology such as rifles in the 19th century, plus the use of poison such as strychnine later on, caused the population collapse. But in the early 1990s the animals reappeared. They crossed the Alps from Italy, upsetting sheep farmers on the French side of the border. Wolves have since spread to areas such as Lozère, delighting environmentalists, who see the predators' presence as a sign of wider ecological health. Farmers, who say the wolves cause the deaths of thousands of sheep and other grazing animals, are less cheerful. They grumble that green activists and politically correct urban types have allowed the return of an old enemy.
Various factors explain the changes of the past few decades. Rural depopulation is part of the story. In Lozère, for example, farming and a once-flourishing mining industry supported a population of over 140,000 residents in the mid-19th century. Today the department has fewer than 80,000 people, many in its towns. As humans withdraw, forests are expanding. In France, between 1990 and 2015, forest cover increased by an average of 102,000 hectares each year, as more fields were given over to trees. Now, nearly one-third of mainland France is covered by woodland of some sort. The decline of hunting as a sport also means more forests fall quiet. In the mid-to-late 20th century over 2m hunters regularly spent winter weekends tramping in woodland, seeking boars, birds and other prey. Today the Fédération Nationale des Chasseurs, the national body, claims 1.1m people hold hunting licences, though the number of active hunters is probably lower. The mostly protected status of the wolf in Europe—hunting them is now forbidden, other than when occasional culls are sanctioned by the state—plus the efforts of NGOs to track and count the animals, also contribute to the recovery of wolf populations.
As the lupine population of Europe spreads westwards, with occasional reports of wolves seen closer to urban areas, expect to hear of more clashes between farmers and those who celebrate the predators' return. Farmers' losses are real, but are not the only economic story. Tourist venues, such as parks where wolves are kept and the animals' spread is discussed, also generate income and jobs in rural areas.
Which one of the following has NOT contributed to the growing wolf population in Lozère?
A decline in the rural population of Lozère.
An increase in woodlands and forest cover in Lozère.
The shutting down of the royal office of the Luparii.
The granting of a protected status to wolves in Europe.
The shutting down of the royal office of the Luparii.
The Luparii royal office was created to catch wolves and completed its job in the 1930s when the last wolf disappeared. The office was an active hunting institution that contributed to wolf eradication, not to wolf population growth. Its shutting down is not mentioned as a factor in the wolf's return, and even if it were no longer active, the passage attributes the wolf's return to specific other factors.
The inhabitants of Lozère have to grapple with all of the following problems, EXCEPT:
lack of educational facilities.
poor rural communication infrastructure.
livestock losses.
decline in the number of hunting licences.
decline in the number of hunting licences.
The passage explicitly lists concerns about local schools, jobs, phone and internet connections, and livestock losses as problems faced by residents of Lozère. A decline in the number of hunting licences is mentioned as a general French trend, but it is presented as a factor contributing to the wolf's return, not as a problem faced by Lozère's inhabitants themselves.
Which one of the following statements, if true, would weaken the author's claims?
Having migrated out in the last century, wolves are now returning to Lozère.
Unemployment concerns the residents of Lozère.
Wolf attacks on tourists in Lozère are on the rise.
The old mining sites of Lozère are now being used as grazing pastures for sheep.
Wolf attacks on tourists in Lozère are on the rise.
The passage presents wolf tourism, such as wolf parks, as generating income and jobs in rural areas, offering a potential economic benefit that could balance farmers' losses. If wolf attacks on tourists were rising, this would undermine the economic case for wolf tourism and remove the potential solution the author offers to reconcile the competing interests of farmers and environmentalists.
The author presents a possible economic solution to an existing issue facing Lozère that takes into account the divergent and competing interests of:
politicians and farmers.
environmentalists and politicians.
farmers and environmentalists.
tourists and environmentalists.
politicians and farmers.
The passage concludes by noting that farmers' losses are real but are not the only economic story, and that tourist venues discussing wolves generate income and jobs in rural areas. This is a proposed economic solution that directly addresses the competing interests of farmers, who see wolves as a threat, and environmentalists, who celebrate the wolves' return.
Landing in Australia, the British colonists weren't much impressed with the small-bodied, slender-snooted marsupials called bandicoots. "Their muzzle, which is much too long, gives them an air exceedingly stupid," one naturalist noted in 1805. They nicknamed one type the "zebra rat" because of its black-striped rump. Silly-looking or not, though, the zebra rat—the smallest bandicoot, more commonly known today as the western barred bandicoot—exhibited a genius for survival in the harsh outback, where its ancestors had persisted for some 26 million years. Its births were triggered by rainfall in the bone-dry desert. It carried its breath-mint-size babies in a backward-facing pouch so mothers could forage for food and dig shallow, camouflaged shelters.
Still, these adaptations did not prepare the western barred bandicoot for the colonial-era transformation of its ecosystem, particularly the onslaught of imported British animals, from cattle and rabbits that damaged delicate desert vegetation to ravenous house cats that soon developed a taste for bandicoots. Several of the dozen-odd bandicoot species went extinct, and by the 1940s the western barred bandicoot, whose original range stretched across much of the continent, persisted only on two predator-free islands in Shark Bay, off Australia's western coast.
"Our isolated fauna had simply not been exposed to these predators," says Reece Pedler, an ecologist with the Wild Deserts conservation program.
Now Wild Deserts is using descendants of those few thousand island survivors, called Shark Bay bandicoots, in a new effort to seed a mainland bandicoot revival. They've imported 20 bandicoots to a preserve on the edge of the Strzelecki Desert, in the remote interior of New South Wales. This sanctuary is a challenging place, desolate much of the year, with one of the world's most mercurial rainfall patterns—relentless droughts followed by sudden drenching floods.
The imported bandicoots occupy two fenced "exclosures," cleared of invasive rabbits (courtesy of Pedler's sheepdog) and of feral cats (which slunk off once the rabbits disappeared). A third fenced area contains the program's Wild Training Zone, where two other rare marsupials (bilbies, a larger type of bandicoot, and mulgaras, a somewhat fearsome fuzzball known for sucking the brains out of prey) currently share terrain with controlled numbers of cats, learning to evade them. It's unclear whether the Shark Bay bandicoots, which are perhaps even more predator-naive than their now-extinct mainland bandicoot kin, will be able to make that kind of breakthrough.
For now, though, a recent surge of rainfall has led to a bandicoot joey boom, raising the Wild Deserts population to about 100, with other sanctuaries adding to that number. There are also signs of rebirth in the landscape itself. With their constant digging, the bandicoots trap moisture and allow for seed germination so the cattle-damaged desert can restore itself. They have a new nickname—a flattering one, this time. "We call them ecosystem engineers," Pedler says.
According to the text, the western barred bandicoots now have a flattering name because they have:
aided in altering an arid environment.
led a revival in preserving the species.
grown fivefold in terms of population.
led to a surge and increase of rainfall.
aided in altering an arid environment.
The passage explains that the bandicoots earned their new nickname, "ecosystem engineers," because their constant digging traps moisture and allows for seed germination, helping the cattle-damaged desert restore itself, directly tying their flattering name to their role in altering and improving the arid environment.
Why Option B is
Incorrect: While the bandicoots are part of a conservation revival effort, the flattering nickname specifically refers to their ecological impact through digging, not to the act of being preserved or revived itself.
Why Option C is
Incorrect: The passage mentions a population increase to about 100, which is a result of the rainfall surge and joey boom, not the reason behind their nickname, which is tied to their ecological digging behaviour.
Why Option D is
Incorrect: The bandicoots do not cause rainfall, rainfall surges are described as triggering their population boom, not as a result of their behaviour, this reverses the cause and effect described in the passage.
Why Option A is Correct: This matches the passage's explicit explanation, that their digging traps moisture and enables seed germination, helping restore the cattle-damaged desert, which is why they are now called ecosystem engineers.
Key Takeaway: Trace a nickname or label back to the exact behaviour or impact the passage attributes to it, rather than other facts about the same subject mentioned nearby.
Which one of the following options does NOT represent the characteristics of the western barred bandicoot?
Shallow diggers having an elongated muzzle.
Smallest black striped marsupial that uses camouflage and digs.
Look of a rat but with a baby pouch and a slender snout.
Long thin nose, black striped back, pouch for joeys.
Smallest black striped marsupial that uses camouflage and digs.
The passage describes the western barred bandicoot as having a long muzzle, black-striped rump, a backward-facing pouch, and the ability to dig shallow camouflaged shelters. Option B incorrectly calls it the smallest "black striped marsupial," when the passage specifically calls it the smallest bandicoot, not the smallest marsupial overall, a broader and unsupported claim.
Why Option A is
Incorrect (as a candidate for not representing the bandicoot): This matches the passage's description of shallow digging for shelters and an elongated muzzle.
Why Option C is
Incorrect (as a candidate for not representing the bandicoot): This matches the rat-like appearance, backward-facing pouch and slender snout described in the passage.
Why Option D is
Incorrect (as a candidate for not representing the bandicoot): This matches the long muzzle, black-striped rump and pouch for carrying joeys described in the passage.
Why Option B is Correct: This incorrectly broadens the description from "smallest bandicoot" to "smallest black striped marsupial," a claim about being the smallest among all marsupials that the passage does not support.
Key Takeaway: Watch for subtly broadened claims, like extending "smallest of its specific type" to "smallest among a broader category," which the passage doesn't actually support.
The text uses the word 'exclosures' because Wild Deserts has adopted a measure of:
restoring cattle damaged deserts to green landscapes.
ridding the main desert of feral cats and large bilbies.
excluding animals to make the islands predator-free.
barring the entry of invasive species.
barring the entry of invasive species.
The passage describes the exclosures as fenced areas cleared of invasive rabbits and feral cats, designed to keep these harmful, non-native predator species out so that the imported bandicoots could thrive without predation. This matches the general measure of barring entry of invasive species.
Why Option A is
Incorrect: Restoring cattle-damaged deserts to green landscapes is a separate, later effect of the bandicoots' digging behaviour, not the specific purpose of the exclosures themselves.
Why Option B is
Incorrect: The exclosures are not described as ridding the main desert of large bilbies, bilbies are mentioned separately as another rare marsupial sharing a different fenced training zone with cats, not removed by the exclosures.
Why Option C is
Incorrect: The islands in Shark Bay, not the exclosures on the mainland sanctuary, are the predator-free locations historically, the exclosures are a separate, newer mainland conservation measure.
Why Option D is Correct: This matches the passage's description of exclosures as fenced areas specifically cleared of invasive rabbits and feral cats, directly reflecting the measure of barring invasive species from entering.
Key Takeaway: Match a described measure to the precise location and purpose given in the passage, rather than to a similar but distinct conservation detail mentioned elsewhere.
Which one of the following statements provides a gist of this passage?
The onslaught of animals, such as cattle, rabbits and housecats, brought in by the British led to the extinction of the western barred bandicoot.
The negligent attitude of the British colonists towards these bandicoots evidenced by the names given to them led to their annihilation.
Marsupials are going extinct due to the colonial era transformation of the ecosystem which also destroyed natural vegetation.
A type of bandicoots was nearly wiped out by invasive species but rescuers now pin hopes on a remnant island population.
A type of bandicoots was nearly wiped out by invasive species but rescuers now pin hopes on a remnant island population.
The passage traces the western barred bandicoot's decline due to invasive species brought by colonists, its survival only on isolated islands, and the current conservation effort using descendants of those island survivors to attempt a mainland revival, which is the overall arc the passage builds toward.
Why Option A is
Incorrect: This captures only the cause of decline, the invasive species, but omits the passage's larger arc about the current conservation revival effort based on island survivors.
Why Option B is
Incorrect: This focuses on the colonists' naming attitude as the cause of near extinction, but the passage attributes the actual decline to invasive predator species, not to the naming itself, which is a minor narrative detail.
Why Option C is
Incorrect: This generalises to "marsupials" broadly and to ecosystem transformation, but the passage's specific focus is the western barred bandicoot's near extinction and the targeted conservation effort, not marsupials in general.
Why Option D is Correct: This captures the passage's full arc, the near extinction caused by invasive species, and the current conservation hope resting on the descendants of the surviving island population.
Key Takeaway: A gist should capture both the problem and the passage's central resolution or current effort, not just one half of the narrative.
Over the course of the twentieth century, humans built, on average, one large dam a day, hulking structures of steel and concrete designed to control flooding, facilitate irrigation, and generate electricity. Dams were also lucrative contracts, large-scale employers, and the physical instantiation of a messianic drive to conquer territories and control nature. Some of the results of that drive were charismatic mega-infrastructure—the Hoover on the Colorado River or the Aswan on the Nile—but most of the tens of thousands of dams that dot the Earth's landscape have drawn little attention. These are the smaller, though not inconsequential, barriers that today impede the flow of water on nearly two-thirds of the world's large waterways. Chances are, what your map calls a "lake" is actually a reservoir, and that thin blue line that emerges from it once flowed very differently.
Damming a river is always a partisan act. Even when explicit infrastructure goals—irrigation, flood control, electrification—were met, other consequences were significant and often deleterious. Across the world, river control displaced millions of people, threatening livelihoods, foodways, and cultures. In the western United States, dams were often an instrument of colonialism, used to dispossess Indigenous people and subsidize settler agriculture. And as dams slowed the flow of water, inhibited the movement of nutrients, and increased the amount of toxic algae and other parasites, they snuffed out entire river ecologies. Declining fish populations are the most evident effect, but dams also threaten a host of other animals—from birds and reptiles to fungi and plants—with extinction. Every major dam, then, is also a sacrifice zone, a place where lives, livelihoods, and ways of life are eliminated so that new sorts of landscapes can support water-intensive agriculture and cities that sprout downstream of new reservoirs.
Such sacrifices have been justified as offerings at the temples of modernity. Justified by—and for—whom, though? Over the course of the twentieth century, rarely were the costs and benefits weighed thoughtfully and decided democratically. As Kader Asmal, chair of the landmark 2000 World Commission on Dams, concluded, "There have been precious few, if any, comprehensive, independent analyses as to why dams came about, how dams perform over time, and whether we are getting a fair return from our $2 trillion investment." A quarter-century later, Asmal's words ring ever truer. A litany of dams built in the mid-twentieth century are approaching the end of their expected lives, with worrying prospects for their durability. Droughts, magnified and multiplied by the effects of climate change, have forced more and more to run below capacity. If ever there were a time to rethink the mania for dams, it would be now.
There is some evidence that a combination of opposition, alternative energy sources, and a lack of viable projects has slowed the construction of major dams. But a wave of recent and ongoing construction, from India and China to Ethiopia and Canada, continues to tilt the global balance firmly in favor of water impoundment.
Which one of the following sets of terms is closest to mapping the key arguments of the passage?
Partisan act - Threatened livelihoods - Toxic algae - Quarter century
Lucrative contracts - Sacrifice zone - Expected lives - Global balance
Mega-infrastructure - Sacrifice zone - Worshipping modernity - Water impoundment
Physical instantiation - Partisan act - Decided democratically - Alternative energy
Mega-infrastructure - Sacrifice zone - Worshipping modernity - Water impoundment
The passage discusses dams as mega-infrastructure projects, describes their harmful consequences as creating "sacrifice zones," frames the unquestioned justification for building them as akin to worshipping modernity, and closes on the global trend of continued water impoundment despite emerging opposition.
Why Option A is
Incorrect: While these terms appear in the passage, "quarter century" is a specific time reference rather than a key conceptual term mapping the passage's central argument.
Why Option B is
Incorrect: "Lucrative contracts" and "expected lives" are specific details rather than central concepts capturing the passage's main arguments about justification, harm, and the unresolved global trend.
Why Option D is
Incorrect: "Physical instantiation" and "decided democratically" are specific phrases used incidentally, not the core conceptual terms mapping the passage's overall argument about dams as sacrifice zones justified by modernity's mania.
Why Option C is Correct: These four terms accurately capture the passage's progression, from describing dams as infrastructure, to their human and ecological cost as sacrifice zones, to the unquestioned justification akin to worship, to the continuing global trend of water impoundment.
Key Takeaway: Choose the term set that traces the passage's actual argumentative arc, not just terms that appear verbatim but represent only incidental details.
What does the author wish to communicate by referring to the Hoover and Aswan dams in the first paragraph?
The Colorado and Nile rivers may be seen as thin blue lines on a map.
By building dams like the Hoover and Aswan dams, large-scale employers became messianic figures.
The designers and builders of these mega-structures were highly charismatic individuals.
The drive to control nature is evident not only in mega-infrastructures like the Hoover and Aswan dams, but in smaller dams as well.
The drive to control nature is evident not only in mega-infrastructures like the Hoover and Aswan dams, but in smaller dams as well.
The passage uses the Hoover and Aswan dams as examples of charismatic mega-infrastructure, then pivots to note that most of the tens of thousands of dams worldwide are smaller and have drawn little attention, despite also being products of the same drive to conquer territories and control nature.
Why Option A is
Incorrect: This is a factual detail mentioned later about reservoirs being mistaken for lakes, unrelated to the specific purpose of mentioning Hoover and Aswan.
Why Option B is
Incorrect: This misreads the passage, "messianic drive" describes the broader ideological motive behind dam-building generally, not a claim that large-scale employers became messianic figures through building these specific dams.
Why Option C is
Incorrect: The passage does not describe the designers and builders as charismatic individuals, it describes the dams themselves as "charismatic mega-infrastructure," a different claim about the structures, not their builders.
Why Option D is Correct: This matches the passage's purpose, using Hoover and Aswan as recognisable examples of the broader drive to control nature, which the passage then extends to the much larger, less noticed set of smaller dams worldwide.
Key Takeaway: When an example is given before a broader claim, check what general point the example is meant to support, rather than treating the example as a standalone fact.
The word "instantiation" is used in the first paragraph. Which one of the following pairs of terms would be the best substitute for it in the context of its usage in the paragraph?
Exemplification and manifestation
Concreteness and viability
Durability and timeliness
Development and construction
Exemplification and manifestation
The phrase "physical instantiation of a messianic drive" describes dams as the concrete manifestation or embodiment of that drive to conquer nature. The best substitute would be terms meaning embodiment or representation in physical form.
Why Option B is
Incorrect: "Concreteness and viability" do not capture the sense of dams being a manifestation of an abstract drive, viability refers to feasibility, which is unrelated to the meaning of instantiation here.
Why Option C is
Incorrect: "Durability and timeliness" are unrelated to the meaning of instantiation, which is about embodiment or manifestation, not about how long-lasting or well-timed something is.
Why Option D is
Incorrect: "Development and construction" describe the process of building dams, not the specific sense of instantiation as the physical embodiment of an abstract drive or ideology.
Why Option A is Correct: "Exemplification and manifestation" precisely capture the meaning of instantiation in this context, dams serving as a concrete representation of the broader messianic drive to control nature.
Key Takeaway: For vocabulary-in-context questions, test whether the substitute terms preserve the specific sense the word carries in that sentence, not just its general dictionary meaning.
All of the following statements may be considered valid inferences from the passage EXCEPT that:
despite increasing evidence of opposition to dams as well as alternatives to them, they continue to be built.
smaller, though not inconsequential, dams are safer than large dam projects.
processes of colonisation have used dam-building to make people vacate their territories.
dam-building has proved to be an extremely costly enterprise that may not be justifiable.
smaller, though not inconsequential, dams are safer than large dam projects.
The passage explicitly describes smaller dams as "not inconsequential," directly contradicting any claim that they are safer than larger dam projects. The passage gives no comparative safety claim about smaller versus larger dams at all.
Why Option A is
Incorrect (as a candidate for the exception): The passage explicitly states that despite opposition, alternative energy sources, and lack of viable projects slowing construction, a wave of recent construction continues to favour dam building, supporting this inference.
Why Option C is
Incorrect (as a candidate for the exception): The passage explicitly states dams were often an instrument of colonialism used to dispossess Indigenous people, directly supporting this inference.
Why Option D is
Incorrect (as a candidate for the exception): The passage cites the $2 trillion investment and questions whether a fair return was achieved, along with the lack of independent analyses, supporting the inference that dam-building's costliness may not be justifiable.
Why Option B is Correct: The passage explicitly calls smaller dams "not inconsequential," implying they too cause significant harm, contradicting any claim that they are safer than large dam projects.
Key Takeaway: Watch for an option that contradicts an explicit qualifier in the passage, here, the passage takes pains to say smaller dams are not harmless, directly undermining a claim of their relative safety.
The Second Hand September campaign, led by Oxfam . . . seeks to encourage shopping at local organisations and charities as alternatives to fast fashion brands such as Primark and Boohoo in the name of saving our planet. As innocent as mindless scrolling through online shops may seem, such consumers are unintentionally—or perhaps even knowingly—contributing to an industry that uses more energy than aviation. . . .
Brits buy more garments than any other country in Europe, so it comes as no shock that many of those clothes end up in UK landfills each year: 300,000 tonnes of them, to be exact. This waste of clothing is destructive to our planet, releasing greenhouse gasses as clothes are burnt as well as bleeding toxins and dyes into the surrounding soil and water. As ecologist Chelsea Rochman bluntly put it, "The mismanagement of our waste has even come back to haunt us on our dinner plate."
It's not surprising, then, that people are scrambling for a solution, the most common of which is second-hand shopping. Retailers selling consigned clothing are currently expanding at a rapid rate . . . If everyone bought just one used item in a year, it would save 449 million lbs of waste, equivalent to the weight of 1 million Polar bears. "Thrifting" has increasingly become a trendy practice. London is home to many second-hand, or more commonly coined 'vintage', shops across the city from Bayswater to Brixton.
So you're cool and you care about the planet; you've killed two birds with one stone. But do people simply purchase a second-hand item, flash it on Instagram with #vintage and call it a day without considering whether what they are doing is actually effective?
According to a study commissioned by Patagonia, for instance, older clothes shed more microfibres. These can end up in our rivers and seas after just one wash due to the worn material, thus contributing to microfibre pollution. To break it down, the amount of microfibres released by laundering 100,000 fleece jackets is equivalent to as many as 11,900 plastic grocery bags, and up to 40 per cent of that ends up in our oceans. . . . So where does this leave second-hand consumers? [They would be well advised to buy] high-quality items that shed less and last longer [as this] combats both microfibre pollution and excess garments ending up in landfills. . . .
Luxury brands would rather not circulate their latest season stock around the globe to be sold at a cheaper price, which is why companies like ThredUP, a US fashion resale marketplace, have not yet caught on in the UK. There will always be a market for consignment but there is also a whole generation of people who have been taught that only buying new products is the norm; second-hand luxury goods are not in their psyche. Ben Whitaker, director at Liquidation Firm B-Stock, told Prospect that unless recycling becomes cost-effective and filters into mass production, with the right technology to partner it, "high-end retailers would rather put brand before sustainability."
The central idea of the passage would be undermined if:
customers bought all their clothes online.
clothes were not thrown and burnt in landfills.
second-hand stores sold only high-quality clothes.
Primark and Boohoo recycled their clothes for vintage stores.
second-hand stores sold only high-quality clothes.
The passage raises a problem with second-hand shopping, that older clothes shed more microfibres, and suggests buying high-quality items that shed less and last longer as the best solution. If second-hand stores sold only high-quality clothes, this would resolve the microfibre problem and make second-hand shopping a genuinely effective solution, removing the central complication the passage raises about the limitations of thrifting.
Why Option A is
Incorrect: Customers buying all their clothes online is not specifically what the passage's argument about the limitations of second-hand shopping depends on, this does not undermine the central issue about waste and microfibre pollution.
Why Option B is
Incorrect: The passage's central concern is about the microfibre pollution and environmental harm caused by second-hand clothes specifically, not just landfill burning. If clothes weren't burnt in landfills, the passage's specific concern about second-hand microfibre pollution would still stand.
Why Option C is Correct: If second-hand stores sold only high-quality clothes, the main problem the passage identifies with second-hand shopping, microfibre pollution from worn garments, would be eliminated. This would make thrifting a genuinely effective environmental solution, undermining the passage's central argument about its limitations.
Why Option D is
Incorrect: Primark and Boohoo recycling their clothes for vintage stores would increase the supply of second-hand clothing but would not address the core issue about microfibre shedding from older clothes that the passage raises.
Key Takeaway: To undermine a passage's central idea, find the scenario that removes the main problem or complication the passage is built around.
According to the author, companies like ThredUP have not caught on in the UK for all of the following reasons EXCEPT that:
recycling is currently not financially attractive for luxury brands.
luxury brands want to maintain their brand image.
luxury brands do not like their product to be devalued.
the British don't buy second-hand clothing.
the British don't buy second-hand clothing.
The passage gives three reasons for ThredUP not catching on in the UK, recycling not being cost-effective, luxury brands prioritising brand image over sustainability, and luxury brands not wanting their latest season stock circulated at cheaper prices. The passage does not say the British specifically don't buy second-hand clothing, in fact the passage describes the growth of vintage and second-hand shops across London.
Why Option A is
Incorrect: The passage explicitly quotes Ben Whitaker saying high-end retailers would rather put brand before sustainability unless recycling becomes cost-effective, directly stating that recycling is currently not financially attractive.
Why Option B is
Incorrect: The passage explicitly states that luxury brands would rather not circulate stock at cheaper prices, which is about protecting brand image.
Why Option C is
Incorrect: The passage explicitly states that luxury brands prefer not to have their latest season stock sold at a cheaper price, directly stating that devaluation of the product is a concern.
Why Option D is Correct: The passage describes the growth of second-hand shopping in London and the wider UK, and the reasons given for ThredUP not catching on are about luxury brand reluctance and cost-effectiveness, not about British consumer attitudes toward second-hand goods generally.
Key Takeaway: When asked for a reason not given in the passage, verify each option directly against what the passage explicitly states as the cause, and identify the one that contradicts the passage's description of consumer behaviour.
Based on the passage, we can infer that the opposite of fast fashion, 'slow fashion', would most likely refer to clothes that:
are of high quality and long lasting.
do not bleed toxins and dyes.
are sold by genuine vintage stores.
do not shed microfibres.
are of high quality and long lasting.
The passage argues that buying high-quality items that shed less and last longer is the best approach for second-hand shoppers, because this combats both microfibre pollution and excess garments ending up in landfills. Slow fashion, as the opposite of fast fashion which generates waste and pollution through disposable, low-quality items, would most logically refer to clothes that are high quality and long-lasting.
Why Option A is Correct: High quality and long-lasting is the direct opposite of fast fashion's defining characteristic of low-quality, disposable items that quickly end up in landfills, making this the most accurate description of slow fashion as the passage's argument implies it.
Why Option B is
Incorrect: Not bleeding toxins and dyes is a concern about disposal and landfill contamination, not a defining characteristic of slow fashion as the opposite of fast fashion's core problem of low quality and short lifespan.
Why Option C is
Incorrect: Being sold by genuine vintage stores is about the retail channel, not a characteristic of the clothes themselves. Slow fashion as an opposing concept to fast fashion would relate to the nature of the clothes, not where they are sold.
Why Option D is
Incorrect: Not shedding microfibres is a desirable property related to the specific microfibre pollution problem the passage raises, but it is a consequence of high quality rather than the defining characteristic of slow fashion itself.
Key Takeaway: Derive the meaning of an implied concept by identifying what the passage explicitly positions as the solution to the problem caused by the named concept.
The act of "thrifting", as described in the passage, can be considered ironic because it:
has created environmental problems.
is not cost-effective for retailers.
offers luxury clothing at cut-rate prices.
is an anti-consumerist attitude.
has created environmental problems.
Thrifting is presented in the passage as an environmentally conscious, trendy practice meant to reduce fashion waste. The irony is that it has created its own environmental problems, specifically microfibre pollution, meaning the act intended to help the planet is contributing to polluting rivers and oceans through microfibre shedding from laundered old clothes.
Why Option A is Correct: The irony is that thrifting, intended as an environmentally responsible alternative to fast fashion, has itself created environmental problems through microfibre pollution, meaning the cure has become part of the disease.
Why Option B is
Incorrect: The passage does not present thrifting as not cost-effective for retailers, it is actually described as expanding rapidly and creating a viable market.
Why Option C is
Incorrect: Thrifting offering luxury clothing at cut-rate prices is not described as ironic in the passage, it is simply a feature of the consignment market rather than a contradiction of its purpose.
Why Option D is
Incorrect: Thrifting as an anti-consumerist attitude is its intended purpose, not an ironic outcome. The irony the passage identifies is the unintended harmful consequence, not the act's own stated aim.
Key Takeaway: Irony in a passage is typically found where an action intended to produce one outcome inadvertently produces the opposite or an equally harmful one.
(. . .) There are three other common drivers for carnivore-human attacks, some of which are more preventable than others. Natural aggression-based conflicts - such as those involving females protecting their young or animals protecting a food source - can often be avoided as long as people stay away from those animals and their food.
Carnivores that recognise humans as a means to get food, are a different story. As they become more reliant on human food they might find at campsites or in rubbish bins, they become less avoidant of humans. Losing that instinctive fear response puts them into more situations where they could get into an altercation with a human, which often results in that bear being put down by humans. "A fed bear is a dead bear," says Servheen, referring to a common saying among biologists and conservationists. Predatory or predation-related attacks are quite rare, only accounting for 17% of attacks in North America since 1955. They occur when a carnivore views a human as prey and hunts it like it would any other animal it uses for food. (. . .)
Then there are animal attacks provoked by people taking pictures with them or feeding them in natural settings such as national parks which often end with animals being euthanised out of precaution. "Eventually, that animal becomes habituated to people, and [then] bad things happen to the animal. And the folks who initially wanted to make that connection don't necessarily realise that," says Christine Wilkinson, a postdoctoral researcher at UC Berkeley, California, who's been studying coyote-human conflicts.
After conducting countless postmortems on all types of carnivore-human attacks spanning 75 years, Penteriani's team believes 50% could have been avoided if humans reacted differently. A 2017 study co-authored by Penteriani found that engaging in risky behaviour around large carnivores increases the likelihood of an attack.
Two of the most common risky behaviours are parents leaving their children to play outside unattended and walking an unleashed dog, according to the study. Wilkinson says 66% of coyote attacks involve a dog. "[People] end up in a situation where their dog is being chased, or their dog chases a coyote, or maybe they're walking their dog near a den that's marked, and the coyote wants to escort them away," says Wilkinson.
Experts believe climate change also plays a part in the escalation of human-carnivore conflicts, but the correlation still needs to be ironed out. "As finite resources become scarcer, carnivores and people are coming into more frequent contact, which means that more conflict could occur," says Jen Miller, international programme specialist for the US Fish & Wildlife Service. For example, she says, there was an uptick in lion attacks in western India during a drought when lions and people were relying on the same water sources.
(. . .) The likelihood of human-carnivore conflicts appears to be higher in areas of low-income countries dominated by vast rural landscapes and farmland, according to Penteriani's research. "There are a lot of working landscapes in the Global South that are really heterogeneous, that are interspersed with carnivore habitats, forests and savannahs, which creates a lot more opportunity for these encounters, just statistically," says Wilkinson.
According to the passage, what is a significant factor that contributes to the habituation of carnivores to human presence?
The natural aggression exhibited by carnivores, exacerbated by human interference, particularly when they are safeguarding their offspring or food sources.
The increased scarcity of resources due to climate change, forcing carnivores to venture outside their natural habitats in search of sustenance.
The predatory perception of humans as potential prey within the carnivores' food chain.
The reduction in carnivores' instinctive fear response, resulting from their reliance upon human-provided food.
The natural aggression exhibited by carnivores, exacerbated by human interference, particularly when they are safeguarding their offspring or food sources.
The passage explicitly explains that carnivores that become reliant on human food lose their instinctive fear response, which leads to more situations where altercations with humans occur. This reduction in the fear response, driven by food habituation, is the mechanism through which carnivores become habituated to human presence.
Given the insights provided by Penteriani's research and Wilkinson's statement, which of the following conclusions can be drawn about the relationship between landscape heterogeneity and human-carnivore conflicts?
Low-income countries with vast, contiguous wilderness areas are less prone to human-carnivore conflicts because these areas lack the human presence necessary for such encounters.
Landscape heterogeneity, characterized by a mix of farmland and natural habitats, inherently reduces the chances of human-carnivore conflicts by providing more refuge for wildlife away from human activity.
Homogeneous landscapes with uniform agricultural practices are more likely to experience high rates of human-carnivore conflicts due to the predictability of resources.
The diversity and interspersion of working landscapes with carnivore habitats in rural areas increase the statistical probability of encounters between humans and carnivores.
Low-income countries with vast, contiguous wilderness areas are less prone to human-carnivore conflicts because these areas lack the human presence necessary for such encounters.
Wilkinson explicitly states that working landscapes in the Global South are interspersed with carnivore habitats, forests and savannahs, and that this creates more statistical opportunities for encounters between humans and carnivores.
Which of the following statements, if false, would be inconsistent with the concerns raised in the passage regarding the drivers of carnivore-human conflicts?
Climate change has had negligible effects on the frequency of carnivore-human interactions in affected regions.
Predatory attacks by carnivores are a common occurrence and have steadily increased over the past few decades.
Carnivores lose their instinctive fear of humans, when consistently exposed to human food sources
Human efforts to avoid risky behaviours around large carnivores have proven effective in reducing conflict incidents.
Climate change has had negligible effects on the frequency of carnivore-human interactions in affected regions.
The passage states that experts believe climate change plays a part in escalating human-carnivore conflicts, citing the example of increased lion attacks during drought in western India. If option A is true, meaning climate change has had negligible effects, this would directly contradict the passage's stated concern about climate change as a driver of conflict, making it inconsistent.
According to the passage, which of the following scenarios would MOST likely exacerbate the frequency of carnivore-human conflicts?
Implementing 'food waste' management strategies to prevent wild animals being attracted to human food sources.
Addressing the impact of climate change on the availability of resources for wildlife.
Attempting to photograph wild animals from within secured viewing areas in national parks and protected zones.
Unleashing dogs by pet owners in areas with known high concentrations of large carnivores.
Unleashing dogs by pet owners in areas with known high concentrations of large carnivores.
The passage explicitly states that walking an unleashed dog is one of the two most common risky behaviours around large carnivores, citing Wilkinson's finding that 66% of coyote attacks involve a dog. Unleashing dogs in areas with high concentrations of large carnivores would directly increase the likelihood of conflict.
Want this as a timed attempt?
Log in free to attempt this topic with a real timer, analytics, streaks and bookmarks.