SAT Exam  >  SAT Questions  >  Questions based on the following passage and ... Start Learning for Free
Questions based on the following passage and supplementary material.
This passage is from David Biello, “Can Tiny Plankton Help Reverse Climate Change?” ©2015 by David Biello. Originally published in Aeon (http://aeon.co/) on July 1, 2014.
The forbidding sea known as the Southern
Ocean surrounds Antarctica with a chilly
current, locking it in a deep freeze like a moat
reaching to the ocean floor. Dangerous icebergs
(5) hide in its gloom. Its churning swells sometimes
serve up freak waves that can easily flip ships.
In this violent place Victor Smetacek hopes to
transform Earth’s atmosphere.
Since the 1980s, Smetacek has studied the
(10) plankton—tiny animals, protists, algae, and
bacteria—that fill the Southern Ocean. Plankton
is our planet’s most prolific life form, providing
the base layer of the global food chain.
Much of the oxygen we breathe comes
(15) from just one species of cyanobacteria,
Prochlorococcus, which has dominated Earth’s
oxygen production for the last 2.4 billion years.
These minuscule marine plants produce more
oxygen than all of the planet’s forests combined.
(20) Their steady breathing is limited only by a lack
of key nutritional elements. If enough of these
nutrients are supplied by dust off a continent or
fertilizer run-off from farm fields, the oceans can
produce blooms that can be seen from space.
(25) Many of these plankton pastures are held
back by iron shortages, especially in places that
are largely cut off from continental dust and dirt.
With access to more iron, the plankton would
proliferate and siphon more and more planet-
(30) heating CO2 from the atmosphere. Back in 1988,
the late John Martin, then an oceanographer at
the Moss Landing Marine Observatory, said: “Give me
a half tanker of iron, and I will give you an ice age.”
Iron fertilization could potentially sequester
(35) as much as one billion metric tons of carbon
dioxide annually, and keep it deep in the ocean for
centuries. That is slightly more than the CO2 output
of the German economy, and roughly one-eighth
of humanity’s entire greenhouse gas output.
(40) Using an iron sulphate waste sold as a
lawn treatment in Germany, Smetacek and his
colleagues set out in 2004 to supply the plankton
with the nutrient they needed. Fertilizing the
waters, they hoped, would promote blooms to help
(45) sea life thrive all the way up the food chain, even
to whale populations, which were still recovering
from overhunting. And, more importantly, the
uneaten plankton could suck out CO2 from the air
until they died and sank to the sea floor, thereby
(50) providing natural carbon sequestration.
Smetacek’s ship dumped enough of the iron
sulfate to raise the iron concentration by 0.01
gram per square meter in a 167-square-kilometer
self-contained swirl of water that could maintain
(55) its shape for weeks or even months. Smetacek and
his crew waited, as he described in his log, “with
the fatalistic patience of the farmer, watching the
crop develop in the painstakingly selected field.”
Over the course of two weeks, thirteen species of
(60) diatoms bloomed down to depths of 100 meters.
Then the bloom began to die in large enough
numbers to overwhelm natural systems of decay,
falling like snow to depths of 500 meters. About
half of them continued on even further, sinking
(65) more than 3,000 meters to the sea floor.
For two weeks, Smetacek induced carbon
to fall to the sea floor at the highest rate ever
observed—34 times faster than normal.
This marine tinkering could help buffer the
(70) ever-increasing concentrations of CO2 in the
atmosphere, concentrations that have touched
400 parts-per-million, levels never before
experienced in the history of our species.
Yet environmentalists were outraged by
(75) Smetacek’s project. Activists stoked fears that
the iron could lead to a toxic algal bloom or a
“dead zone” like the one created each summer
in the Gulf of Mexico, where the fertilizers from
Midwestern cornfields gush out of the Mississippi
(80) river, stoking algal blooms that then die and are
consumed by other microbes, which consume
all the available oxygen in the surrounding
waters, causing fish to flee and suffocating crabs
and worms. As a result of these objections, there
(85) have been no scientific research cruises since
2009, and none are planned for the immediate
future.
Smetacek suggests that commerce might be
the only way to motivate further research into
(90) iron fertilization. Replenishing missing krill, and
the whales it supports, could be the best route to
broader acceptance of the practice.
The ocean is no longer a vast, unknowable
wilderness. Instead, it’s a viable arena for 
(95) large-scale manipulation of the planetary
environment. We have tamed the heaving, alien
world of the sea and, though doing so can make
us uncomfortable, in the end it might undo a great
deal of the damage we have already done.
Q. The passage suggests that iron fertilization could potentially help the whale population primarily by
  • a)
    increasing the concentration of oxygen in the ecosphere.
  • b)
    decreasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
  • c)
    supporting an important food source for the whales.
  • d)
    reducing the demand for hunting in areas where the whales are endangered.
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Most Upvoted Answer
Questions based on the following passage and supplementary material.Th...
The passage states that plankton serves as the base layer of the global food chain (line 13) and therefore fertilizing phytoplankton with iron would promote blooms to help sea life thrive all the way up the food chain, even to whale populations (lines 44–46). Therefore, iron fertilization helps the whale population by supporting an important food source for the whales.
Explore Courses for SAT exam

Similar SAT Doubts

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material.This passage is adapted from Bryan Walsh, "Whole Food Blues: Why Organic Agriculture May Not Be So Sustainable." ©2012 by Time Inc.When it comes to energy, everyone lovesefficiency. Cutting energy waste is one of those goalsthat both sides of the political divide can agree on,even if they sometimes diverge on how best to get(5) there. Energy efficiency allows us to get more out ofour given resources, which is good for the economyand (mostly) good for the environment as well. Inan increasingly hot and crowded world, the onlysustainable way to live is to get more out of less.(10) Every environmentalist would agree.But change the conversation to food, andsuddenly efficiency doesn’t look so good.Conventional industrial agriculture has becomeincredibly efficient on a simple land to food basis.(15) Thanks to fertilizers, mechanization and irrigation,each American farmer feeds over 155 peopleworldwide. Conventional farming gets more andmore crop per square foot of cultivated land—over 170 bushels of corn per acre in Iowa, for(20) example—which can mean less territory needs tobe converted from wilderness to farmland.And since a third of the planet is already used foragriculture—destroying forests and other wildhabitats along the way—anything that could help us(25) produce more food on less land would seem to begood for the environment.Of course, that’s not how most environmentalistsregard their arugula [a leafy green]. They haveembraced organic food as better for the planet—and(30) healthier and tastier, too—than the stuff produced byagricultural corporations. Environmentalists disdainthe enormous amounts of energy needed and wastecreated by conventional farming, while organicpractices—forgoing artificial fertilizers and chemical(35) pesticides—are considered far more sustainable.Sales of organic food rose 7.7% in 2010, up to $26.7billion—and people are making those purchases fortheir consciences as much as their taste buds.Yet a new meta-analysis in Nature does the math(40) and comes to a hard conclusion: organic farmingyields 25% fewer crops on average than conventionalagriculture. More land is therefore needed toproduce fewer crops—and that means organicfarming may not be as good for the planet as(45) we think.In the Nature analysis, scientists from McGillUniversity in Montreal and the University ofMinnesota performed an analysis of 66 studiescomparing conventional and organic methods across(50) 34 different crop species, from fruits to grains tolegumes. They found that organic farming delivereda lower yield for every crop type, though the disparityvaried widely. For rain-watered legume crops likebeans or perennial crops like fruit trees, organic(55) trailed conventional agriculture by just 5%. Yet formajor cereal crops like corn or wheat, as well as mostvegetables—all of which provide the bulk of theworld’s calories—conventional agricultureoutperformed organics by more than 25%.(60) The main difference is nitrogen, the chemical keyto plant growth. Conventional agriculture makes useof 171 million metric tons of synthetic fertilizer eachyear, and all that nitrogen enables much faster plantgrowth than the slower release of nitrogen from the(65) compost or cover crops used in organic farming.When we talk about a Green Revolution, we reallymean a nitrogen revolution—along with a lot ofwater.But not all the nitrogen used in conventional(70) fertilizer ends up in crops—much of it ends uprunning off the soil and into the oceans, creating vastpolluted dead zones. We’re already putting morenitrogen into the soil than the planet can stand overthe long term. And conventional agriculture also(75) depends heavily on chemical pesticides, which canhave unintended side effects.What that means is that while conventionalagriculture is more efficient—sometimes much moreefficient—than organic farming, there are trade-offs(80) with each. So an ideal global agriculture system, inthe views of the study’s authors, may borrow the bestfrom both systems, as Jonathan Foley of theUniversity of Minnesota explained:The bottom line? Today’s organic farming(85) practices are probably best deployed in fruit andvegetable farms, where growing nutrition (notjust bulk calories) is the primary goal. But fordelivering sheer calories, especially in our staplecrops of wheat, rice, maize, soybeans and so on,(90) conventional farms have the advantage right now.Looking forward, I think we will need to deploydifferent kinds of practices (especially new,mixed approaches that take the best of organic(95) and conventional farming systems) where theyare best suited—geographically, economically,socially, etc.Q.According to Foley, an “ideal global agriculture system” (line 80)

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material.This passage is adapted from Bryan Walsh, "Whole Food Blues: Why Organic Agriculture May Not Be So Sustainable." ©2012 by Time Inc.When it comes to energy, everyone lovesefficiency. Cutting energy waste is one of those goalsthat both sides of the political divide can agree on,even if they sometimes diverge on how best to get(5) there. Energy efficiency allows us to get more out ofour given resources, which is good for the economyand (mostly) good for the environment as well. Inan increasingly hot and crowded world, the onlysustainable way to live is to get more out of less.(10) Every environmentalist would agree.But change the conversation to food, andsuddenly efficiency doesn’t look so good.Conventional industrial agriculture has becomeincredibly efficient on a simple land to food basis.(15) Thanks to fertilizers, mechanization and irrigation,each American farmer feeds over 155 peopleworldwide. Conventional farming gets more andmore crop per square foot of cultivated land—over 170 bushels of corn per acre in Iowa, for(20) example—which can mean less territory needs tobe converted from wilderness to farmland.And since a third of the planet is already used foragriculture—destroying forests and other wildhabitats along the way—anything that could help us(25) produce more food on less land would seem to begood for the environment.Of course, that’s not how most environmentalistsregard their arugula [a leafy green]. They haveembraced organic food as better for the planet—and(30) healthier and tastier, too—than the stuff produced byagricultural corporations. Environmentalists disdainthe enormous amounts of energy needed and wastecreated by conventional farming, while organicpractices—forgoing artificial fertilizers and chemical(35) pesticides—are considered far more sustainable.Sales of organic food rose 7.7% in 2010, up to $26.7billion—and people are making those purchases fortheir consciences as much as their taste buds.Yet a new meta-analysis in Nature does the math(40) and comes to a hard conclusion: organic farmingyields 25% fewer crops on average than conventionalagriculture. More land is therefore needed toproduce fewer crops—and that means organicfarming may not be as good for the planet as(45) we think.In the Nature analysis, scientists from McGillUniversity in Montreal and the University ofMinnesota performed an analysis of 66 studiescomparing conventional and organic methods across(50) 34 different crop species, from fruits to grains tolegumes. They found that organic farming delivereda lower yield for every crop type, though the disparityvaried widely. For rain-watered legume crops likebeans or perennial crops like fruit trees, organic(55) trailed conventional agriculture by just 5%. Yet formajor cereal crops like corn or wheat, as well as mostvegetables—all of which provide the bulk of theworld’s calories—conventional agricultureoutperformed organics by more than 25%.(60) The main difference is nitrogen, the chemical keyto plant growth. Conventional agriculture makes useof 171 million metric tons of synthetic fertilizer eachyear, and all that nitrogen enables much faster plantgrowth than the slower release of nitrogen from the(65) compost or cover crops used in organic farming.When we talk about a Green Revolution, we reallymean a nitrogen revolution—along with a lot ofwater.But not all the nitrogen used in conventional(70) fertilizer ends up in crops—much of it ends uprunning off the soil and into the oceans, creating vastpolluted dead zones. We’re already putting morenitrogen into the soil than the planet can stand overthe long term. And conventional agriculture also(75) depends heavily on chemical pesticides, which canhave unintended side effects.What that means is that while conventionalagriculture is more efficient—sometimes much moreefficient—than organic farming, there are trade-offs(80) with each. So an ideal global agriculture system, inthe views of the study’s authors, may borrow the bestfrom both systems, as Jonathan Foley of theUniversity of Minnesota explained:The bottom line? Today’s organic farming(85) practices are probably best deployed in fruit andvegetable farms, where growing nutrition (notjust bulk calories) is the primary goal. But fordelivering sheer calories, especially in our staplecrops of wheat, rice, maize, soybeans and so on,(90) conventional farms have the advantage right now.Looking forward, I think we will need to deploydifferent kinds of practices (especially new,mixed approaches that take the best of organic(95) and conventional farming systems) where theyare best suited—geographically, economically,socially, etc.Q.According to the passage, a significant attribute of conventional agriculture is its ability to

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material.This passage is adapted from Bryan Walsh, "Whole Food Blues: Why Organic Agriculture May Not Be So Sustainable." ©2012 by Time Inc.When it comes to energy, everyone lovesefficiency. Cutting energy waste is one of those goalsthat both sides of the political divide can agree on,even if they sometimes diverge on how best to get(5) there. Energy efficiency allows us to get more out ofour given resources, which is good for the economyand (mostly) good for the environment as well. Inan increasingly hot and crowded world, the onlysustainable way to live is to get more out of less.(10) Every environmentalist would agree.But change the conversation to food, andsuddenly efficiency doesn’t look so good.Conventional industrial agriculture has becomeincredibly efficient on a simple land to food basis.(15) Thanks to fertilizers, mechanization and irrigation,each American farmer feeds over 155 peopleworldwide. Conventional farming gets more andmore crop per square foot of cultivated land—over 170 bushels of corn per acre in Iowa, for(20) example—which can mean less territory needs tobe converted from wilderness to farmland.And since a third of the planet is already used foragriculture—destroying forests and other wildhabitats along the way—anything that could help us(25) produce more food on less land would seem to begood for the environment.Of course, that’s not how most environmentalistsregard their arugula [a leafy green]. They haveembraced organic food as better for the planet—and(30) healthier and tastier, too—than the stuff produced byagricultural corporations. Environmentalists disdainthe enormous amounts of energy needed and wastecreated by conventional farming, while organicpractices—forgoing artificial fertilizers and chemical(35) pesticides—are considered far more sustainable.Sales of organic food rose 7.7% in 2010, up to $26.7billion—and people are making those purchases fortheir consciences as much as their taste buds.Yet a new meta-analysis in Nature does the math(40) and comes to a hard conclusion: organic farmingyields 25% fewer crops on average than conventionalagriculture. More land is therefore needed toproduce fewer crops—and that means organicfarming may not be as good for the planet as(45) we think.In the Nature analysis, scientists from McGillUniversity in Montreal and the University ofMinnesota performed an analysis of 66 studiescomparing conventional and organic methods across(50) 34 different crop species, from fruits to grains tolegumes. They found that organic farming delivereda lower yield for every crop type, though the disparityvaried widely. For rain-watered legume crops likebeans or perennial crops like fruit trees, organic(55) trailed conventional agriculture by just 5%. Yet formajor cereal crops like corn or wheat, as well as mostvegetables—all of which provide the bulk of theworld’s calories—conventional agricultureoutperformed organics by more than 25%.(60) The main difference is nitrogen, the chemical keyto plant growth. Conventional agriculture makes useof 171 million metric tons of synthetic fertilizer eachyear, and all that nitrogen enables much faster plantgrowth than the slower release of nitrogen from the(65) compost or cover crops used in organic farming.When we talk about a Green Revolution, we reallymean a nitrogen revolution—along with a lot ofwater.But not all the nitrogen used in conventional(70) fertilizer ends up in crops—much of it ends uprunning off the soil and into the oceans, creating vastpolluted dead zones. We’re already putting morenitrogen into the soil than the planet can stand overthe long term. And conventional agriculture also(75) depends heavily on chemical pesticides, which canhave unintended side effects.What that means is that while conventionalagriculture is more efficient—sometimes much moreefficient—than organic farming, there are trade-offs(80) with each. So an ideal global agriculture system, inthe views of the study’s authors, may borrow the bestfrom both systems, as Jonathan Foley of theUniversity of Minnesota explained:The bottom line? Today’s organic farming(85) practices are probably best deployed in fruit andvegetable farms, where growing nutrition (notjust bulk calories) is the primary goal. But fordelivering sheer calories, especially in our staplecrops of wheat, rice, maize, soybeans and so on,(90) conventional farms have the advantage right now.Looking forward, I think we will need to deploydifferent kinds of practices (especially new,mixed approaches that take the best of organic(95) and conventional farming systems) where theyare best suited—geographically, economically,socially, etc.Q.Which choice best reflects the perspective of the “environmentalists” (line 27) on conventional agriculture?

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material.This passage is adapted from Bryan Walsh, "Whole Food Blues: Why Organic Agriculture May Not Be So Sustainable." ©2012 by Time Inc.When it comes to energy, everyone lovesefficiency. Cutting energy waste is one of those goalsthat both sides of the political divide can agree on,even if they sometimes diverge on how best to get(5) there. Energy efficiency allows us to get more out ofour given resources, which is good for the economyand (mostly) good for the environment as well. Inan increasingly hot and crowded world, the onlysustainable way to live is to get more out of less.(10) Every environmentalist would agree.But change the conversation to food, andsuddenly efficiency doesn’t look so good.Conventional industrial agriculture has becomeincredibly efficient on a simple land to food basis.(15) Thanks to fertilizers, mechanization and irrigation,each American farmer feeds over 155 peopleworldwide. Conventional farming gets more andmore crop per square foot of cultivated land—over 170 bushels of corn per acre in Iowa, for(20) example—which can mean less territory needs tobe converted from wilderness to farmland.And since a third of the planet is already used foragriculture—destroying forests and other wildhabitats along the way—anything that could help us(25) produce more food on less land would seem to begood for the environment.Of course, that’s not how most environmentalistsregard their arugula [a leafy green]. They haveembraced organic food as better for the planet—and(30) healthier and tastier, too—than the stuff produced byagricultural corporations. Environmentalists disdainthe enormous amounts of energy needed and wastecreated by conventional farming, while organicpractices—forgoing artificial fertilizers and chemical(35) pesticides—are considered far more sustainable.Sales of organic food rose 7.7% in 2010, up to $26.7billion—and people are making those purchases fortheir consciences as much as their taste buds.Yet a new meta-analysis in Nature does the math(40) and comes to a hard conclusion: organic farmingyields 25% fewer crops on average than conventionalagriculture. More land is therefore needed toproduce fewer crops—and that means organicfarming may not be as good for the planet as(45) we think.In the Nature analysis, scientists from McGillUniversity in Montreal and the University ofMinnesota performed an analysis of 66 studiescomparing conventional and organic methods across(50) 34 different crop species, from fruits to grains tolegumes. They found that organic farming delivereda lower yield for every crop type, though the disparityvaried widely. For rain-watered legume crops likebeans or perennial crops like fruit trees, organic(55) trailed conventional agriculture by just 5%. Yet formajor cereal crops like corn or wheat, as well as mostvegetables—all of which provide the bulk of theworld’s calories—conventional agricultureoutperformed organics by more than 25%.(60) The main difference is nitrogen, the chemical keyto plant growth. Conventional agriculture makes useof 171 million metric tons of synthetic fertilizer eachyear, and all that nitrogen enables much faster plantgrowth than the slower release of nitrogen from the(65) compost or cover crops used in organic farming.When we talk about a Green Revolution, we reallymean a nitrogen revolution—along with a lot ofwater.But not all the nitrogen used in conventional(70) fertilizer ends up in crops—much of it ends uprunning off the soil and into the oceans, creating vastpolluted dead zones. We’re already putting morenitrogen into the soil than the planet can stand overthe long term. And conventional agriculture also(75) depends heavily on chemical pesticides, which canhave unintended side effects.What that means is that while conventionalagriculture is more efficient—sometimes much moreefficient—than organic farming, there are trade-offs(80) with each. So an ideal global agriculture system, inthe views of the study’s authors, may borrow the bestfrom both systems, as Jonathan Foley of theUniversity of Minnesota explained:The bottom line? Today’s organic farming(85) practices are probably best deployed in fruit andvegetable farms, where growing nutrition (notjust bulk calories) is the primary goal. But fordelivering sheer calories, especially in our staplecrops of wheat, rice, maize, soybeans and so on,(90) conventional farms have the advantage right now.Looking forward, I think we will need to deploydifferent kinds of practices (especially new,mixed approaches that take the best of organic(95) and conventional farming systems) where theyare best suited—geographically, economically,socially, etc.Q.In line 88, “sheer” most nearly means

Question based on the following passage and supplementary material.This passage is adapted from Bryan Walsh, "Whole Food Blues: Why Organic Agriculture May Not Be So Sustainable." ©2012 by Time Inc.When it comes to energy, everyone lovesefficiency. Cutting energy waste is one of those goalsthat both sides of the political divide can agree on,even if they sometimes diverge on how best to get(5) there. Energy efficiency allows us to get more out ofour given resources, which is good for the economyand (mostly) good for the environment as well. Inan increasingly hot and crowded world, the onlysustainable way to live is to get more out of less.(10) Every environmentalist would agree.But change the conversation to food, andsuddenly efficiency doesn’t look so good.Conventional industrial agriculture has becomeincredibly efficient on a simple land to food basis.(15) Thanks to fertilizers, mechanization and irrigation,each American farmer feeds over 155 peopleworldwide. Conventional farming gets more andmore crop per square foot of cultivated land—over 170 bushels of corn per acre in Iowa, for(20) example—which can mean less territory needs tobe converted from wilderness to farmland.And since a third of the planet is already used foragriculture—destroying forests and other wildhabitats along the way—anything that could help us(25) produce more food on less land would seem to begood for the environment.Of course, that’s not how most environmentalistsregard their arugula [a leafy green]. They haveembraced organic food as better for the planet—and(30) healthier and tastier, too—than the stuff produced byagricultural corporations. Environmentalists disdainthe enormous amounts of energy needed and wastecreated by conventional farming, while organicpractices—forgoing artificial fertilizers and chemical(35) pesticides—are considered far more sustainable.Sales of organic food rose 7.7% in 2010, up to $26.7billion—and people are making those purchases fortheir consciences as much as their taste buds.Yet a new meta-analysis in Nature does the math(40) and comes to a hard conclusion: organic farmingyields 25% fewer crops on average than conventionalagriculture. More land is therefore needed toproduce fewer crops—and that means organicfarming may not be as good for the planet as(45) we think.In the Nature analysis, scientists from McGillUniversity in Montreal and the University ofMinnesota performed an analysis of 66 studiescomparing conventional and organic methods across(50) 34 different crop species, from fruits to grains tolegumes. They found that organic farming delivereda lower yield for every crop type, though the disparityvaried widely. For rain-watered legume crops likebeans or perennial crops like fruit trees, organic(55) trailed conventional agriculture by just 5%. Yet formajor cereal crops like corn or wheat, as well as mostvegetables—all of which provide the bulk of theworld’s calories—conventional agricultureoutperformed organics by more than 25%.(60) The main difference is nitrogen, the chemical keyto plant growth. Conventional agriculture makes useof 171 million metric tons of synthetic fertilizer eachyear, and all that nitrogen enables much faster plantgrowth than the slower release of nitrogen from the(65) compost or cover crops used in organic farming.When we talk about a Green Revolution, we reallymean a nitrogen revolution—along with a lot ofwater.But not all the nitrogen used in conventional(70) fertilizer ends up in crops—much of it ends uprunning off the soil and into the oceans, creating vastpolluted dead zones. We’re already putting morenitrogen into the soil than the planet can stand overthe long term. And conventional agriculture also(75) depends heavily on chemical pesticides, which canhave unintended side effects.What that means is that while conventionalagriculture is more efficient—sometimes much moreefficient—than organic farming, there are trade-offs(80) with each. So an ideal global agriculture system, inthe views of the study’s authors, may borrow the bestfrom both systems, as Jonathan Foley of theUniversity of Minnesota explained:The bottom line? Today’s organic farming(85) practices are probably best deployed in fruit andvegetable farms, where growing nutrition (notjust bulk calories) is the primary goal. But fordelivering sheer calories, especially in our staplecrops of wheat, rice, maize, soybeans and so on,(90) conventional farms have the advantage right now.Looking forward, I think we will need to deploydifferent kinds of practices (especially new,mixed approaches that take the best of organic(95) and conventional farming systems) where theyare best suited—geographically, economically,socially, etc.Q.Which choice provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?

Questions based on the following passage and supplementary material.This passage is from David Biello, “Can Tiny Plankton Help Reverse Climate Change?” ©2015 by David Biello. Originally published in Aeon (http://aeon.co/) on July1, 2014.The forbidding sea known as the SouthernOcean surrounds Antarctica with a chillycurrent, locking it in a deep freeze like a moatreaching to the ocean floor. Dangerous icebergs(5) hide in its gloom. Its churning swells sometimesserve up freak waves that can easily flip ships.In this violent place Victor Smetacek hopes totransform Earth’s atmosphere.Since the 1980s, Smetacek has studied the(10) plankton—tiny animals, protists, algae, andbacteria—that fill the Southern Ocean. Planktonis our planet’s most prolific life form, providingthe base layer of the global food chain.Much of the oxygen we breathe comes(15) from just one species of cyanobacteria,Prochlorococcus, which has dominated Earth’soxygen production for the last 2.4 billion years.These minuscule marine plants produce moreoxygen than all of the planet’s forests combined.(20) Their steady breathing is limited only by a lackof key nutritional elements. If enough of thesenutrients are supplied by dust off a continent orfertilizer run-off from farm fields, the oceans canproduce blooms that can be seen from space.(25) Many of these plankton pastures are heldback by iron shortages, especially in places thatare largely cut off from continental dust and dirt.With access to more iron, the plankton wouldproliferate and siphon more and more planet-(30) heating CO2 from the atmosphere. Back in 1988,the late John Martin, then an oceanographer atthe Moss Landing Marine Observatory, said: “Give mea half tanker of iron, and I will give you an ice age.”Iron fertilization could potentially sequester(35) as much as one billion metric tons of carbondioxide annually, and keep it deep in the ocean forcenturies. That is slightly more than the CO2 outputof the German economy, and roughly one-eighthof humanity’s entire greenhouse gas output.(40) Using an iron sulphate waste sold as alawn treatment in Germany, Smetacek and hiscolleagues set out in 2004 to supply the planktonwith the nutrient they needed. Fertilizing thewaters, they hoped, would promote blooms to help(45) sea life thrive all the way up the food chain, evento whale populations, which were still recoveringfrom overhunting. And, more importantly, theuneaten plankton could suck out CO2 from the airuntil they died and sank to the sea floor, thereby(50) providing natural carbon sequestration.Smetacek’s ship dumped enough of the ironsulfate to raise the iron concentration by 0.01gram per square meter in a 167-square-kilometerself-contained swirl of water that could maintain(55) its shape for weeks or even months. Smetacek andhis crew waited, as he described in his log, “withthe fatalistic patience of the farmer, watching thecrop develop in the painstakingly selected field.”Over the course of two weeks, thirteen species of(60) diatoms bloomed down to depths of 100 meters.Then the bloom began to die in large enoughnumbers to overwhelm natural systems of decay,falling like snow to depths of 500 meters. Abouthalf of them continued on even further, sinking(65) more than 3,000 meters to the sea floor.For two weeks, Smetacek induced carbonto fall to the sea floor at the highest rate everobserved—34 times faster than normal.This marine tinkering could help buffer the(70) ever-increasing concentrations of CO2 in theatmosphere, concentrations that have touched400 parts-per-million, levels never beforeexperienced in the history of our species.Yet environmentalists were outraged by(75) Smetacek’s project. Activists stoked fears thatthe iron could lead to a toxic algal bloom or a“dead zone” like the one created each summerin the Gulf of Mexico, where the fertilizers fromMidwestern cornfields gush out of the Mississippi(80) river, stoking algal blooms that then die and areconsumed by other microbes, which consumeall the available oxygen in the surroundingwaters, causing fish to flee and suffocating crabsand worms. As a result of these objections, there(85) havebeen no scientific research cruises since2009, and none are planned for the immediatefuture.Smetacek suggests that commerce might bethe only way to motivate further research into(90) iron fertilization. Replenishing missing krill, andthe whales it supports, could be the best route tobroader acceptance of the practice.The ocean is no longer a vast, unknowablewilderness. Instead, it’s a viable arena for(95) large-scale manipulation of the planetaryenvironment. We have tamed the heaving, alienworld of the sea and, though doing so can makeus uncomfortable, in the end it might undo a greatdeal of the damage we have already done.Q.The passage suggests that iron fertilization could potentially help the whale population primarily bya)increasing the concentration of oxygen in the ecosphere.b)decreasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.c)supporting an important food source for the whales.d)reducing the demand for hunting in areas where the whales are endangered.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Questions based on the following passage and supplementary material.This passage is from David Biello, “Can Tiny Plankton Help Reverse Climate Change?” ©2015 by David Biello. Originally published in Aeon (http://aeon.co/) on July1, 2014.The forbidding sea known as the SouthernOcean surrounds Antarctica with a chillycurrent, locking it in a deep freeze like a moatreaching to the ocean floor. Dangerous icebergs(5) hide in its gloom. Its churning swells sometimesserve up freak waves that can easily flip ships.In this violent place Victor Smetacek hopes totransform Earth’s atmosphere.Since the 1980s, Smetacek has studied the(10) plankton—tiny animals, protists, algae, andbacteria—that fill the Southern Ocean. Planktonis our planet’s most prolific life form, providingthe base layer of the global food chain.Much of the oxygen we breathe comes(15) from just one species of cyanobacteria,Prochlorococcus, which has dominated Earth’soxygen production for the last 2.4 billion years.These minuscule marine plants produce moreoxygen than all of the planet’s forests combined.(20) Their steady breathing is limited only by a lackof key nutritional elements. If enough of thesenutrients are supplied by dust off a continent orfertilizer run-off from farm fields, the oceans canproduce blooms that can be seen from space.(25) Many of these plankton pastures are heldback by iron shortages, especially in places thatare largely cut off from continental dust and dirt.With access to more iron, the plankton wouldproliferate and siphon more and more planet-(30) heating CO2 from the atmosphere. Back in 1988,the late John Martin, then an oceanographer atthe Moss Landing Marine Observatory, said: “Give mea half tanker of iron, and I will give you an ice age.”Iron fertilization could potentially sequester(35) as much as one billion metric tons of carbondioxide annually, and keep it deep in the ocean forcenturies. That is slightly more than the CO2 outputof the German economy, and roughly one-eighthof humanity’s entire greenhouse gas output.(40) Using an iron sulphate waste sold as alawn treatment in Germany, Smetacek and hiscolleagues set out in 2004 to supply the planktonwith the nutrient they needed. Fertilizing thewaters, they hoped, would promote blooms to help(45) sea life thrive all the way up the food chain, evento whale populations, which were still recoveringfrom overhunting. And, more importantly, theuneaten plankton could suck out CO2 from the airuntil they died and sank to the sea floor, thereby(50) providing natural carbon sequestration.Smetacek’s ship dumped enough of the ironsulfate to raise the iron concentration by 0.01gram per square meter in a 167-square-kilometerself-contained swirl of water that could maintain(55) its shape for weeks or even months. Smetacek andhis crew waited, as he described in his log, “withthe fatalistic patience of the farmer, watching thecrop develop in the painstakingly selected field.”Over the course of two weeks, thirteen species of(60) diatoms bloomed down to depths of 100 meters.Then the bloom began to die in large enoughnumbers to overwhelm natural systems of decay,falling like snow to depths of 500 meters. Abouthalf of them continued on even further, sinking(65) more than 3,000 meters to the sea floor.For two weeks, Smetacek induced carbonto fall to the sea floor at the highest rate everobserved—34 times faster than normal.This marine tinkering could help buffer the(70) ever-increasing concentrations of CO2 in theatmosphere, concentrations that have touched400 parts-per-million, levels never beforeexperienced in the history of our species.Yet environmentalists were outraged by(75) Smetacek’s project. Activists stoked fears thatthe iron could lead to a toxic algal bloom or a“dead zone” like the one created each summerin the Gulf of Mexico, where the fertilizers fromMidwestern cornfields gush out of the Mississippi(80) river, stoking algal blooms that then die and areconsumed by other microbes, which consumeall the available oxygen in the surroundingwaters, causing fish to flee and suffocating crabsand worms. As a result of these objections, there(85) havebeen no scientific research cruises since2009, and none are planned for the immediatefuture.Smetacek suggests that commerce might bethe only way to motivate further research into(90) iron fertilization. Replenishing missing krill, andthe whales it supports, could be the best route tobroader acceptance of the practice.The ocean is no longer a vast, unknowablewilderness. Instead, it’s a viable arena for(95) large-scale manipulation of the planetaryenvironment. We have tamed the heaving, alienworld of the sea and, though doing so can makeus uncomfortable, in the end it might undo a greatdeal of the damage we have already done.Q.The passage suggests that iron fertilization could potentially help the whale population primarily bya)increasing the concentration of oxygen in the ecosphere.b)decreasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.c)supporting an important food source for the whales.d)reducing the demand for hunting in areas where the whales are endangered.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for SAT 2025 is part of SAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the SAT exam syllabus. Information about Questions based on the following passage and supplementary material.This passage is from David Biello, “Can Tiny Plankton Help Reverse Climate Change?” ©2015 by David Biello. Originally published in Aeon (http://aeon.co/) on July1, 2014.The forbidding sea known as the SouthernOcean surrounds Antarctica with a chillycurrent, locking it in a deep freeze like a moatreaching to the ocean floor. Dangerous icebergs(5) hide in its gloom. Its churning swells sometimesserve up freak waves that can easily flip ships.In this violent place Victor Smetacek hopes totransform Earth’s atmosphere.Since the 1980s, Smetacek has studied the(10) plankton—tiny animals, protists, algae, andbacteria—that fill the Southern Ocean. Planktonis our planet’s most prolific life form, providingthe base layer of the global food chain.Much of the oxygen we breathe comes(15) from just one species of cyanobacteria,Prochlorococcus, which has dominated Earth’soxygen production for the last 2.4 billion years.These minuscule marine plants produce moreoxygen than all of the planet’s forests combined.(20) Their steady breathing is limited only by a lackof key nutritional elements. If enough of thesenutrients are supplied by dust off a continent orfertilizer run-off from farm fields, the oceans canproduce blooms that can be seen from space.(25) Many of these plankton pastures are heldback by iron shortages, especially in places thatare largely cut off from continental dust and dirt.With access to more iron, the plankton wouldproliferate and siphon more and more planet-(30) heating CO2 from the atmosphere. Back in 1988,the late John Martin, then an oceanographer atthe Moss Landing Marine Observatory, said: “Give mea half tanker of iron, and I will give you an ice age.”Iron fertilization could potentially sequester(35) as much as one billion metric tons of carbondioxide annually, and keep it deep in the ocean forcenturies. That is slightly more than the CO2 outputof the German economy, and roughly one-eighthof humanity’s entire greenhouse gas output.(40) Using an iron sulphate waste sold as alawn treatment in Germany, Smetacek and hiscolleagues set out in 2004 to supply the planktonwith the nutrient they needed. Fertilizing thewaters, they hoped, would promote blooms to help(45) sea life thrive all the way up the food chain, evento whale populations, which were still recoveringfrom overhunting. And, more importantly, theuneaten plankton could suck out CO2 from the airuntil they died and sank to the sea floor, thereby(50) providing natural carbon sequestration.Smetacek’s ship dumped enough of the ironsulfate to raise the iron concentration by 0.01gram per square meter in a 167-square-kilometerself-contained swirl of water that could maintain(55) its shape for weeks or even months. Smetacek andhis crew waited, as he described in his log, “withthe fatalistic patience of the farmer, watching thecrop develop in the painstakingly selected field.”Over the course of two weeks, thirteen species of(60) diatoms bloomed down to depths of 100 meters.Then the bloom began to die in large enoughnumbers to overwhelm natural systems of decay,falling like snow to depths of 500 meters. Abouthalf of them continued on even further, sinking(65) more than 3,000 meters to the sea floor.For two weeks, Smetacek induced carbonto fall to the sea floor at the highest rate everobserved—34 times faster than normal.This marine tinkering could help buffer the(70) ever-increasing concentrations of CO2 in theatmosphere, concentrations that have touched400 parts-per-million, levels never beforeexperienced in the history of our species.Yet environmentalists were outraged by(75) Smetacek’s project. Activists stoked fears thatthe iron could lead to a toxic algal bloom or a“dead zone” like the one created each summerin the Gulf of Mexico, where the fertilizers fromMidwestern cornfields gush out of the Mississippi(80) river, stoking algal blooms that then die and areconsumed by other microbes, which consumeall the available oxygen in the surroundingwaters, causing fish to flee and suffocating crabsand worms. As a result of these objections, there(85) havebeen no scientific research cruises since2009, and none are planned for the immediatefuture.Smetacek suggests that commerce might bethe only way to motivate further research into(90) iron fertilization. Replenishing missing krill, andthe whales it supports, could be the best route tobroader acceptance of the practice.The ocean is no longer a vast, unknowablewilderness. Instead, it’s a viable arena for(95) large-scale manipulation of the planetaryenvironment. We have tamed the heaving, alienworld of the sea and, though doing so can makeus uncomfortable, in the end it might undo a greatdeal of the damage we have already done.Q.The passage suggests that iron fertilization could potentially help the whale population primarily bya)increasing the concentration of oxygen in the ecosphere.b)decreasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.c)supporting an important food source for the whales.d)reducing the demand for hunting in areas where the whales are endangered.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for SAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Questions based on the following passage and supplementary material.This passage is from David Biello, “Can Tiny Plankton Help Reverse Climate Change?” ©2015 by David Biello. Originally published in Aeon (http://aeon.co/) on July1, 2014.The forbidding sea known as the SouthernOcean surrounds Antarctica with a chillycurrent, locking it in a deep freeze like a moatreaching to the ocean floor. Dangerous icebergs(5) hide in its gloom. Its churning swells sometimesserve up freak waves that can easily flip ships.In this violent place Victor Smetacek hopes totransform Earth’s atmosphere.Since the 1980s, Smetacek has studied the(10) plankton—tiny animals, protists, algae, andbacteria—that fill the Southern Ocean. Planktonis our planet’s most prolific life form, providingthe base layer of the global food chain.Much of the oxygen we breathe comes(15) from just one species of cyanobacteria,Prochlorococcus, which has dominated Earth’soxygen production for the last 2.4 billion years.These minuscule marine plants produce moreoxygen than all of the planet’s forests combined.(20) Their steady breathing is limited only by a lackof key nutritional elements. If enough of thesenutrients are supplied by dust off a continent orfertilizer run-off from farm fields, the oceans canproduce blooms that can be seen from space.(25) Many of these plankton pastures are heldback by iron shortages, especially in places thatare largely cut off from continental dust and dirt.With access to more iron, the plankton wouldproliferate and siphon more and more planet-(30) heating CO2 from the atmosphere. Back in 1988,the late John Martin, then an oceanographer atthe Moss Landing Marine Observatory, said: “Give mea half tanker of iron, and I will give you an ice age.”Iron fertilization could potentially sequester(35) as much as one billion metric tons of carbondioxide annually, and keep it deep in the ocean forcenturies. That is slightly more than the CO2 outputof the German economy, and roughly one-eighthof humanity’s entire greenhouse gas output.(40) Using an iron sulphate waste sold as alawn treatment in Germany, Smetacek and hiscolleagues set out in 2004 to supply the planktonwith the nutrient they needed. Fertilizing thewaters, they hoped, would promote blooms to help(45) sea life thrive all the way up the food chain, evento whale populations, which were still recoveringfrom overhunting. And, more importantly, theuneaten plankton could suck out CO2 from the airuntil they died and sank to the sea floor, thereby(50) providing natural carbon sequestration.Smetacek’s ship dumped enough of the ironsulfate to raise the iron concentration by 0.01gram per square meter in a 167-square-kilometerself-contained swirl of water that could maintain(55) its shape for weeks or even months. Smetacek andhis crew waited, as he described in his log, “withthe fatalistic patience of the farmer, watching thecrop develop in the painstakingly selected field.”Over the course of two weeks, thirteen species of(60) diatoms bloomed down to depths of 100 meters.Then the bloom began to die in large enoughnumbers to overwhelm natural systems of decay,falling like snow to depths of 500 meters. Abouthalf of them continued on even further, sinking(65) more than 3,000 meters to the sea floor.For two weeks, Smetacek induced carbonto fall to the sea floor at the highest rate everobserved—34 times faster than normal.This marine tinkering could help buffer the(70) ever-increasing concentrations of CO2 in theatmosphere, concentrations that have touched400 parts-per-million, levels never beforeexperienced in the history of our species.Yet environmentalists were outraged by(75) Smetacek’s project. Activists stoked fears thatthe iron could lead to a toxic algal bloom or a“dead zone” like the one created each summerin the Gulf of Mexico, where the fertilizers fromMidwestern cornfields gush out of the Mississippi(80) river, stoking algal blooms that then die and areconsumed by other microbes, which consumeall the available oxygen in the surroundingwaters, causing fish to flee and suffocating crabsand worms. As a result of these objections, there(85) havebeen no scientific research cruises since2009, and none are planned for the immediatefuture.Smetacek suggests that commerce might bethe only way to motivate further research into(90) iron fertilization. Replenishing missing krill, andthe whales it supports, could be the best route tobroader acceptance of the practice.The ocean is no longer a vast, unknowablewilderness. Instead, it’s a viable arena for(95) large-scale manipulation of the planetaryenvironment. We have tamed the heaving, alienworld of the sea and, though doing so can makeus uncomfortable, in the end it might undo a greatdeal of the damage we have already done.Q.The passage suggests that iron fertilization could potentially help the whale population primarily bya)increasing the concentration of oxygen in the ecosphere.b)decreasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.c)supporting an important food source for the whales.d)reducing the demand for hunting in areas where the whales are endangered.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Questions based on the following passage and supplementary material.This passage is from David Biello, “Can Tiny Plankton Help Reverse Climate Change?” ©2015 by David Biello. Originally published in Aeon (http://aeon.co/) on July1, 2014.The forbidding sea known as the SouthernOcean surrounds Antarctica with a chillycurrent, locking it in a deep freeze like a moatreaching to the ocean floor. Dangerous icebergs(5) hide in its gloom. Its churning swells sometimesserve up freak waves that can easily flip ships.In this violent place Victor Smetacek hopes totransform Earth’s atmosphere.Since the 1980s, Smetacek has studied the(10) plankton—tiny animals, protists, algae, andbacteria—that fill the Southern Ocean. Planktonis our planet’s most prolific life form, providingthe base layer of the global food chain.Much of the oxygen we breathe comes(15) from just one species of cyanobacteria,Prochlorococcus, which has dominated Earth’soxygen production for the last 2.4 billion years.These minuscule marine plants produce moreoxygen than all of the planet’s forests combined.(20) Their steady breathing is limited only by a lackof key nutritional elements. If enough of thesenutrients are supplied by dust off a continent orfertilizer run-off from farm fields, the oceans canproduce blooms that can be seen from space.(25) Many of these plankton pastures are heldback by iron shortages, especially in places thatare largely cut off from continental dust and dirt.With access to more iron, the plankton wouldproliferate and siphon more and more planet-(30) heating CO2 from the atmosphere. Back in 1988,the late John Martin, then an oceanographer atthe Moss Landing Marine Observatory, said: “Give mea half tanker of iron, and I will give you an ice age.”Iron fertilization could potentially sequester(35) as much as one billion metric tons of carbondioxide annually, and keep it deep in the ocean forcenturies. That is slightly more than the CO2 outputof the German economy, and roughly one-eighthof humanity’s entire greenhouse gas output.(40) Using an iron sulphate waste sold as alawn treatment in Germany, Smetacek and hiscolleagues set out in 2004 to supply the planktonwith the nutrient they needed. Fertilizing thewaters, they hoped, would promote blooms to help(45) sea life thrive all the way up the food chain, evento whale populations, which were still recoveringfrom overhunting. And, more importantly, theuneaten plankton could suck out CO2 from the airuntil they died and sank to the sea floor, thereby(50) providing natural carbon sequestration.Smetacek’s ship dumped enough of the ironsulfate to raise the iron concentration by 0.01gram per square meter in a 167-square-kilometerself-contained swirl of water that could maintain(55) its shape for weeks or even months. Smetacek andhis crew waited, as he described in his log, “withthe fatalistic patience of the farmer, watching thecrop develop in the painstakingly selected field.”Over the course of two weeks, thirteen species of(60) diatoms bloomed down to depths of 100 meters.Then the bloom began to die in large enoughnumbers to overwhelm natural systems of decay,falling like snow to depths of 500 meters. Abouthalf of them continued on even further, sinking(65) more than 3,000 meters to the sea floor.For two weeks, Smetacek induced carbonto fall to the sea floor at the highest rate everobserved—34 times faster than normal.This marine tinkering could help buffer the(70) ever-increasing concentrations of CO2 in theatmosphere, concentrations that have touched400 parts-per-million, levels never beforeexperienced in the history of our species.Yet environmentalists were outraged by(75) Smetacek’s project. Activists stoked fears thatthe iron could lead to a toxic algal bloom or a“dead zone” like the one created each summerin the Gulf of Mexico, where the fertilizers fromMidwestern cornfields gush out of the Mississippi(80) river, stoking algal blooms that then die and areconsumed by other microbes, which consumeall the available oxygen in the surroundingwaters, causing fish to flee and suffocating crabsand worms. As a result of these objections, there(85) havebeen no scientific research cruises since2009, and none are planned for the immediatefuture.Smetacek suggests that commerce might bethe only way to motivate further research into(90) iron fertilization. Replenishing missing krill, andthe whales it supports, could be the best route tobroader acceptance of the practice.The ocean is no longer a vast, unknowablewilderness. Instead, it’s a viable arena for(95) large-scale manipulation of the planetaryenvironment. We have tamed the heaving, alienworld of the sea and, though doing so can makeus uncomfortable, in the end it might undo a greatdeal of the damage we have already done.Q.The passage suggests that iron fertilization could potentially help the whale population primarily bya)increasing the concentration of oxygen in the ecosphere.b)decreasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.c)supporting an important food source for the whales.d)reducing the demand for hunting in areas where the whales are endangered.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for SAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for SAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Questions based on the following passage and supplementary material.This passage is from David Biello, “Can Tiny Plankton Help Reverse Climate Change?” ©2015 by David Biello. Originally published in Aeon (http://aeon.co/) on July1, 2014.The forbidding sea known as the SouthernOcean surrounds Antarctica with a chillycurrent, locking it in a deep freeze like a moatreaching to the ocean floor. Dangerous icebergs(5) hide in its gloom. Its churning swells sometimesserve up freak waves that can easily flip ships.In this violent place Victor Smetacek hopes totransform Earth’s atmosphere.Since the 1980s, Smetacek has studied the(10) plankton—tiny animals, protists, algae, andbacteria—that fill the Southern Ocean. Planktonis our planet’s most prolific life form, providingthe base layer of the global food chain.Much of the oxygen we breathe comes(15) from just one species of cyanobacteria,Prochlorococcus, which has dominated Earth’soxygen production for the last 2.4 billion years.These minuscule marine plants produce moreoxygen than all of the planet’s forests combined.(20) Their steady breathing is limited only by a lackof key nutritional elements. If enough of thesenutrients are supplied by dust off a continent orfertilizer run-off from farm fields, the oceans canproduce blooms that can be seen from space.(25) Many of these plankton pastures are heldback by iron shortages, especially in places thatare largely cut off from continental dust and dirt.With access to more iron, the plankton wouldproliferate and siphon more and more planet-(30) heating CO2 from the atmosphere. Back in 1988,the late John Martin, then an oceanographer atthe Moss Landing Marine Observatory, said: “Give mea half tanker of iron, and I will give you an ice age.”Iron fertilization could potentially sequester(35) as much as one billion metric tons of carbondioxide annually, and keep it deep in the ocean forcenturies. That is slightly more than the CO2 outputof the German economy, and roughly one-eighthof humanity’s entire greenhouse gas output.(40) Using an iron sulphate waste sold as alawn treatment in Germany, Smetacek and hiscolleagues set out in 2004 to supply the planktonwith the nutrient they needed. Fertilizing thewaters, they hoped, would promote blooms to help(45) sea life thrive all the way up the food chain, evento whale populations, which were still recoveringfrom overhunting. And, more importantly, theuneaten plankton could suck out CO2 from the airuntil they died and sank to the sea floor, thereby(50) providing natural carbon sequestration.Smetacek’s ship dumped enough of the ironsulfate to raise the iron concentration by 0.01gram per square meter in a 167-square-kilometerself-contained swirl of water that could maintain(55) its shape for weeks or even months. Smetacek andhis crew waited, as he described in his log, “withthe fatalistic patience of the farmer, watching thecrop develop in the painstakingly selected field.”Over the course of two weeks, thirteen species of(60) diatoms bloomed down to depths of 100 meters.Then the bloom began to die in large enoughnumbers to overwhelm natural systems of decay,falling like snow to depths of 500 meters. Abouthalf of them continued on even further, sinking(65) more than 3,000 meters to the sea floor.For two weeks, Smetacek induced carbonto fall to the sea floor at the highest rate everobserved—34 times faster than normal.This marine tinkering could help buffer the(70) ever-increasing concentrations of CO2 in theatmosphere, concentrations that have touched400 parts-per-million, levels never beforeexperienced in the history of our species.Yet environmentalists were outraged by(75) Smetacek’s project. Activists stoked fears thatthe iron could lead to a toxic algal bloom or a“dead zone” like the one created each summerin the Gulf of Mexico, where the fertilizers fromMidwestern cornfields gush out of the Mississippi(80) river, stoking algal blooms that then die and areconsumed by other microbes, which consumeall the available oxygen in the surroundingwaters, causing fish to flee and suffocating crabsand worms. As a result of these objections, there(85) havebeen no scientific research cruises since2009, and none are planned for the immediatefuture.Smetacek suggests that commerce might bethe only way to motivate further research into(90) iron fertilization. Replenishing missing krill, andthe whales it supports, could be the best route tobroader acceptance of the practice.The ocean is no longer a vast, unknowablewilderness. Instead, it’s a viable arena for(95) large-scale manipulation of the planetaryenvironment. We have tamed the heaving, alienworld of the sea and, though doing so can makeus uncomfortable, in the end it might undo a greatdeal of the damage we have already done.Q.The passage suggests that iron fertilization could potentially help the whale population primarily bya)increasing the concentration of oxygen in the ecosphere.b)decreasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.c)supporting an important food source for the whales.d)reducing the demand for hunting in areas where the whales are endangered.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Questions based on the following passage and supplementary material.This passage is from David Biello, “Can Tiny Plankton Help Reverse Climate Change?” ©2015 by David Biello. Originally published in Aeon (http://aeon.co/) on July1, 2014.The forbidding sea known as the SouthernOcean surrounds Antarctica with a chillycurrent, locking it in a deep freeze like a moatreaching to the ocean floor. Dangerous icebergs(5) hide in its gloom. Its churning swells sometimesserve up freak waves that can easily flip ships.In this violent place Victor Smetacek hopes totransform Earth’s atmosphere.Since the 1980s, Smetacek has studied the(10) plankton—tiny animals, protists, algae, andbacteria—that fill the Southern Ocean. Planktonis our planet’s most prolific life form, providingthe base layer of the global food chain.Much of the oxygen we breathe comes(15) from just one species of cyanobacteria,Prochlorococcus, which has dominated Earth’soxygen production for the last 2.4 billion years.These minuscule marine plants produce moreoxygen than all of the planet’s forests combined.(20) Their steady breathing is limited only by a lackof key nutritional elements. If enough of thesenutrients are supplied by dust off a continent orfertilizer run-off from farm fields, the oceans canproduce blooms that can be seen from space.(25) Many of these plankton pastures are heldback by iron shortages, especially in places thatare largely cut off from continental dust and dirt.With access to more iron, the plankton wouldproliferate and siphon more and more planet-(30) heating CO2 from the atmosphere. Back in 1988,the late John Martin, then an oceanographer atthe Moss Landing Marine Observatory, said: “Give mea half tanker of iron, and I will give you an ice age.”Iron fertilization could potentially sequester(35) as much as one billion metric tons of carbondioxide annually, and keep it deep in the ocean forcenturies. That is slightly more than the CO2 outputof the German economy, and roughly one-eighthof humanity’s entire greenhouse gas output.(40) Using an iron sulphate waste sold as alawn treatment in Germany, Smetacek and hiscolleagues set out in 2004 to supply the planktonwith the nutrient they needed. Fertilizing thewaters, they hoped, would promote blooms to help(45) sea life thrive all the way up the food chain, evento whale populations, which were still recoveringfrom overhunting. And, more importantly, theuneaten plankton could suck out CO2 from the airuntil they died and sank to the sea floor, thereby(50) providing natural carbon sequestration.Smetacek’s ship dumped enough of the ironsulfate to raise the iron concentration by 0.01gram per square meter in a 167-square-kilometerself-contained swirl of water that could maintain(55) its shape for weeks or even months. Smetacek andhis crew waited, as he described in his log, “withthe fatalistic patience of the farmer, watching thecrop develop in the painstakingly selected field.”Over the course of two weeks, thirteen species of(60) diatoms bloomed down to depths of 100 meters.Then the bloom began to die in large enoughnumbers to overwhelm natural systems of decay,falling like snow to depths of 500 meters. Abouthalf of them continued on even further, sinking(65) more than 3,000 meters to the sea floor.For two weeks, Smetacek induced carbonto fall to the sea floor at the highest rate everobserved—34 times faster than normal.This marine tinkering could help buffer the(70) ever-increasing concentrations of CO2 in theatmosphere, concentrations that have touched400 parts-per-million, levels never beforeexperienced in the history of our species.Yet environmentalists were outraged by(75) Smetacek’s project. Activists stoked fears thatthe iron could lead to a toxic algal bloom or a“dead zone” like the one created each summerin the Gulf of Mexico, where the fertilizers fromMidwestern cornfields gush out of the Mississippi(80) river, stoking algal blooms that then die and areconsumed by other microbes, which consumeall the available oxygen in the surroundingwaters, causing fish to flee and suffocating crabsand worms. As a result of these objections, there(85) havebeen no scientific research cruises since2009, and none are planned for the immediatefuture.Smetacek suggests that commerce might bethe only way to motivate further research into(90) iron fertilization. Replenishing missing krill, andthe whales it supports, could be the best route tobroader acceptance of the practice.The ocean is no longer a vast, unknowablewilderness. Instead, it’s a viable arena for(95) large-scale manipulation of the planetaryenvironment. We have tamed the heaving, alienworld of the sea and, though doing so can makeus uncomfortable, in the end it might undo a greatdeal of the damage we have already done.Q.The passage suggests that iron fertilization could potentially help the whale population primarily bya)increasing the concentration of oxygen in the ecosphere.b)decreasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.c)supporting an important food source for the whales.d)reducing the demand for hunting in areas where the whales are endangered.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Questions based on the following passage and supplementary material.This passage is from David Biello, “Can Tiny Plankton Help Reverse Climate Change?” ©2015 by David Biello. Originally published in Aeon (http://aeon.co/) on July1, 2014.The forbidding sea known as the SouthernOcean surrounds Antarctica with a chillycurrent, locking it in a deep freeze like a moatreaching to the ocean floor. Dangerous icebergs(5) hide in its gloom. Its churning swells sometimesserve up freak waves that can easily flip ships.In this violent place Victor Smetacek hopes totransform Earth’s atmosphere.Since the 1980s, Smetacek has studied the(10) plankton—tiny animals, protists, algae, andbacteria—that fill the Southern Ocean. Planktonis our planet’s most prolific life form, providingthe base layer of the global food chain.Much of the oxygen we breathe comes(15) from just one species of cyanobacteria,Prochlorococcus, which has dominated Earth’soxygen production for the last 2.4 billion years.These minuscule marine plants produce moreoxygen than all of the planet’s forests combined.(20) Their steady breathing is limited only by a lackof key nutritional elements. If enough of thesenutrients are supplied by dust off a continent orfertilizer run-off from farm fields, the oceans canproduce blooms that can be seen from space.(25) Many of these plankton pastures are heldback by iron shortages, especially in places thatare largely cut off from continental dust and dirt.With access to more iron, the plankton wouldproliferate and siphon more and more planet-(30) heating CO2 from the atmosphere. Back in 1988,the late John Martin, then an oceanographer atthe Moss Landing Marine Observatory, said: “Give mea half tanker of iron, and I will give you an ice age.”Iron fertilization could potentially sequester(35) as much as one billion metric tons of carbondioxide annually, and keep it deep in the ocean forcenturies. That is slightly more than the CO2 outputof the German economy, and roughly one-eighthof humanity’s entire greenhouse gas output.(40) Using an iron sulphate waste sold as alawn treatment in Germany, Smetacek and hiscolleagues set out in 2004 to supply the planktonwith the nutrient they needed. Fertilizing thewaters, they hoped, would promote blooms to help(45) sea life thrive all the way up the food chain, evento whale populations, which were still recoveringfrom overhunting. And, more importantly, theuneaten plankton could suck out CO2 from the airuntil they died and sank to the sea floor, thereby(50) providing natural carbon sequestration.Smetacek’s ship dumped enough of the ironsulfate to raise the iron concentration by 0.01gram per square meter in a 167-square-kilometerself-contained swirl of water that could maintain(55) its shape for weeks or even months. Smetacek andhis crew waited, as he described in his log, “withthe fatalistic patience of the farmer, watching thecrop develop in the painstakingly selected field.”Over the course of two weeks, thirteen species of(60) diatoms bloomed down to depths of 100 meters.Then the bloom began to die in large enoughnumbers to overwhelm natural systems of decay,falling like snow to depths of 500 meters. Abouthalf of them continued on even further, sinking(65) more than 3,000 meters to the sea floor.For two weeks, Smetacek induced carbonto fall to the sea floor at the highest rate everobserved—34 times faster than normal.This marine tinkering could help buffer the(70) ever-increasing concentrations of CO2 in theatmosphere, concentrations that have touched400 parts-per-million, levels never beforeexperienced in the history of our species.Yet environmentalists were outraged by(75) Smetacek’s project. Activists stoked fears thatthe iron could lead to a toxic algal bloom or a“dead zone” like the one created each summerin the Gulf of Mexico, where the fertilizers fromMidwestern cornfields gush out of the Mississippi(80) river, stoking algal blooms that then die and areconsumed by other microbes, which consumeall the available oxygen in the surroundingwaters, causing fish to flee and suffocating crabsand worms. As a result of these objections, there(85) havebeen no scientific research cruises since2009, and none are planned for the immediatefuture.Smetacek suggests that commerce might bethe only way to motivate further research into(90) iron fertilization. Replenishing missing krill, andthe whales it supports, could be the best route tobroader acceptance of the practice.The ocean is no longer a vast, unknowablewilderness. Instead, it’s a viable arena for(95) large-scale manipulation of the planetaryenvironment. We have tamed the heaving, alienworld of the sea and, though doing so can makeus uncomfortable, in the end it might undo a greatdeal of the damage we have already done.Q.The passage suggests that iron fertilization could potentially help the whale population primarily bya)increasing the concentration of oxygen in the ecosphere.b)decreasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.c)supporting an important food source for the whales.d)reducing the demand for hunting in areas where the whales are endangered.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Questions based on the following passage and supplementary material.This passage is from David Biello, “Can Tiny Plankton Help Reverse Climate Change?” ©2015 by David Biello. Originally published in Aeon (http://aeon.co/) on July1, 2014.The forbidding sea known as the SouthernOcean surrounds Antarctica with a chillycurrent, locking it in a deep freeze like a moatreaching to the ocean floor. Dangerous icebergs(5) hide in its gloom. Its churning swells sometimesserve up freak waves that can easily flip ships.In this violent place Victor Smetacek hopes totransform Earth’s atmosphere.Since the 1980s, Smetacek has studied the(10) plankton—tiny animals, protists, algae, andbacteria—that fill the Southern Ocean. Planktonis our planet’s most prolific life form, providingthe base layer of the global food chain.Much of the oxygen we breathe comes(15) from just one species of cyanobacteria,Prochlorococcus, which has dominated Earth’soxygen production for the last 2.4 billion years.These minuscule marine plants produce moreoxygen than all of the planet’s forests combined.(20) Their steady breathing is limited only by a lackof key nutritional elements. If enough of thesenutrients are supplied by dust off a continent orfertilizer run-off from farm fields, the oceans canproduce blooms that can be seen from space.(25) Many of these plankton pastures are heldback by iron shortages, especially in places thatare largely cut off from continental dust and dirt.With access to more iron, the plankton wouldproliferate and siphon more and more planet-(30) heating CO2 from the atmosphere. Back in 1988,the late John Martin, then an oceanographer atthe Moss Landing Marine Observatory, said: “Give mea half tanker of iron, and I will give you an ice age.”Iron fertilization could potentially sequester(35) as much as one billion metric tons of carbondioxide annually, and keep it deep in the ocean forcenturies. That is slightly more than the CO2 outputof the German economy, and roughly one-eighthof humanity’s entire greenhouse gas output.(40) Using an iron sulphate waste sold as alawn treatment in Germany, Smetacek and hiscolleagues set out in 2004 to supply the planktonwith the nutrient they needed. Fertilizing thewaters, they hoped, would promote blooms to help(45) sea life thrive all the way up the food chain, evento whale populations, which were still recoveringfrom overhunting. And, more importantly, theuneaten plankton could suck out CO2 from the airuntil they died and sank to the sea floor, thereby(50) providing natural carbon sequestration.Smetacek’s ship dumped enough of the ironsulfate to raise the iron concentration by 0.01gram per square meter in a 167-square-kilometerself-contained swirl of water that could maintain(55) its shape for weeks or even months. Smetacek andhis crew waited, as he described in his log, “withthe fatalistic patience of the farmer, watching thecrop develop in the painstakingly selected field.”Over the course of two weeks, thirteen species of(60) diatoms bloomed down to depths of 100 meters.Then the bloom began to die in large enoughnumbers to overwhelm natural systems of decay,falling like snow to depths of 500 meters. Abouthalf of them continued on even further, sinking(65) more than 3,000 meters to the sea floor.For two weeks, Smetacek induced carbonto fall to the sea floor at the highest rate everobserved—34 times faster than normal.This marine tinkering could help buffer the(70) ever-increasing concentrations of CO2 in theatmosphere, concentrations that have touched400 parts-per-million, levels never beforeexperienced in the history of our species.Yet environmentalists were outraged by(75) Smetacek’s project. Activists stoked fears thatthe iron could lead to a toxic algal bloom or a“dead zone” like the one created each summerin the Gulf of Mexico, where the fertilizers fromMidwestern cornfields gush out of the Mississippi(80) river, stoking algal blooms that then die and areconsumed by other microbes, which consumeall the available oxygen in the surroundingwaters, causing fish to flee and suffocating crabsand worms. As a result of these objections, there(85) havebeen no scientific research cruises since2009, and none are planned for the immediatefuture.Smetacek suggests that commerce might bethe only way to motivate further research into(90) iron fertilization. Replenishing missing krill, andthe whales it supports, could be the best route tobroader acceptance of the practice.The ocean is no longer a vast, unknowablewilderness. Instead, it’s a viable arena for(95) large-scale manipulation of the planetaryenvironment. We have tamed the heaving, alienworld of the sea and, though doing so can makeus uncomfortable, in the end it might undo a greatdeal of the damage we have already done.Q.The passage suggests that iron fertilization could potentially help the whale population primarily bya)increasing the concentration of oxygen in the ecosphere.b)decreasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.c)supporting an important food source for the whales.d)reducing the demand for hunting in areas where the whales are endangered.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Questions based on the following passage and supplementary material.This passage is from David Biello, “Can Tiny Plankton Help Reverse Climate Change?” ©2015 by David Biello. Originally published in Aeon (http://aeon.co/) on July1, 2014.The forbidding sea known as the SouthernOcean surrounds Antarctica with a chillycurrent, locking it in a deep freeze like a moatreaching to the ocean floor. Dangerous icebergs(5) hide in its gloom. Its churning swells sometimesserve up freak waves that can easily flip ships.In this violent place Victor Smetacek hopes totransform Earth’s atmosphere.Since the 1980s, Smetacek has studied the(10) plankton—tiny animals, protists, algae, andbacteria—that fill the Southern Ocean. Planktonis our planet’s most prolific life form, providingthe base layer of the global food chain.Much of the oxygen we breathe comes(15) from just one species of cyanobacteria,Prochlorococcus, which has dominated Earth’soxygen production for the last 2.4 billion years.These minuscule marine plants produce moreoxygen than all of the planet’s forests combined.(20) Their steady breathing is limited only by a lackof key nutritional elements. If enough of thesenutrients are supplied by dust off a continent orfertilizer run-off from farm fields, the oceans canproduce blooms that can be seen from space.(25) Many of these plankton pastures are heldback by iron shortages, especially in places thatare largely cut off from continental dust and dirt.With access to more iron, the plankton wouldproliferate and siphon more and more planet-(30) heating CO2 from the atmosphere. Back in 1988,the late John Martin, then an oceanographer atthe Moss Landing Marine Observatory, said: “Give mea half tanker of iron, and I will give you an ice age.”Iron fertilization could potentially sequester(35) as much as one billion metric tons of carbondioxide annually, and keep it deep in the ocean forcenturies. That is slightly more than the CO2 outputof the German economy, and roughly one-eighthof humanity’s entire greenhouse gas output.(40) Using an iron sulphate waste sold as alawn treatment in Germany, Smetacek and hiscolleagues set out in 2004 to supply the planktonwith the nutrient they needed. Fertilizing thewaters, they hoped, would promote blooms to help(45) sea life thrive all the way up the food chain, evento whale populations, which were still recoveringfrom overhunting. And, more importantly, theuneaten plankton could suck out CO2 from the airuntil they died and sank to the sea floor, thereby(50) providing natural carbon sequestration.Smetacek’s ship dumped enough of the ironsulfate to raise the iron concentration by 0.01gram per square meter in a 167-square-kilometerself-contained swirl of water that could maintain(55) its shape for weeks or even months. Smetacek andhis crew waited, as he described in his log, “withthe fatalistic patience of the farmer, watching thecrop develop in the painstakingly selected field.”Over the course of two weeks, thirteen species of(60) diatoms bloomed down to depths of 100 meters.Then the bloom began to die in large enoughnumbers to overwhelm natural systems of decay,falling like snow to depths of 500 meters. Abouthalf of them continued on even further, sinking(65) more than 3,000 meters to the sea floor.For two weeks, Smetacek induced carbonto fall to the sea floor at the highest rate everobserved—34 times faster than normal.This marine tinkering could help buffer the(70) ever-increasing concentrations of CO2 in theatmosphere, concentrations that have touched400 parts-per-million, levels never beforeexperienced in the history of our species.Yet environmentalists were outraged by(75) Smetacek’s project. Activists stoked fears thatthe iron could lead to a toxic algal bloom or a“dead zone” like the one created each summerin the Gulf of Mexico, where the fertilizers fromMidwestern cornfields gush out of the Mississippi(80) river, stoking algal blooms that then die and areconsumed by other microbes, which consumeall the available oxygen in the surroundingwaters, causing fish to flee and suffocating crabsand worms. As a result of these objections, there(85) havebeen no scientific research cruises since2009, and none are planned for the immediatefuture.Smetacek suggests that commerce might bethe only way to motivate further research into(90) iron fertilization. Replenishing missing krill, andthe whales it supports, could be the best route tobroader acceptance of the practice.The ocean is no longer a vast, unknowablewilderness. Instead, it’s a viable arena for(95) large-scale manipulation of the planetaryenvironment. We have tamed the heaving, alienworld of the sea and, though doing so can makeus uncomfortable, in the end it might undo a greatdeal of the damage we have already done.Q.The passage suggests that iron fertilization could potentially help the whale population primarily bya)increasing the concentration of oxygen in the ecosphere.b)decreasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.c)supporting an important food source for the whales.d)reducing the demand for hunting in areas where the whales are endangered.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice SAT tests.
Explore Courses for SAT exam

Top Courses for SAT

Explore Courses
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev