SAT Exam  >  SAT Questions  >  Text 1What factors influence the abundance of... Start Learning for Free
Text 1
What factors influence the abundance of species in a given ecological community? Some theorists have argued that historical diversity is a major driver of how diverse an ecological community eventually becomes: differences in community diversity across otherwise similar habitats, in this view, are strongly affected by the number of species living in those habitats at earlier times.
Text 2
In 2010, a group of researchers including biologist Carla Cáceres created artificial pools in a New York forest. They stocked some pools with a diverse mix of zooplankton species and others with a single zooplankton species and allowed the pool communities to develop naturally thereafter. Over the course of four years, Cáceres and colleagues periodically measured the species diversity of the pools, finding—contrary to their expectations—that by the end of the study there was little to no difference in the pools' species diversity.
Based on the texts, how would Cáceres and colleagues (Text 2) most likely describe the view of the theorists presented in Text 1?
  • a)
    It is largely correct, but it requires a minor refinement in light of the research team's results.
  • b)
    It is not compelling as a theory regardless of any experimental data collected by the research team.
  • c)
    It may seem plausible, but it is not supported by the research team's findings.
  • d)
    It probably holds true only in conditions like those in the research team's study.
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Verified Answer
Text 1What factors influence the abundance of species in a given ecolo...
Let's start by summarizing each text in our own words.
Text 1: This passage presents the view of a group of "theorists" about ecological diversity. Specifically, the theorists claim that "historical diversity is a major driver of how diverse an ecological community eventually becomes." If we were to simplify and rephrase this claim, we might say that
More diversity early on means more diversity later.
Text 2: This passage presents the findings from a particular experiment. Scientists stocked a number of pools, giving some high species diversity and others low species diversity. After four years, they found ("contrary to their expectations") that the species diversity in all the pools to be the same. If we were to simplify and rephrase this finding, we might say that
Surprisingly, more diversity early on doesn't make a difference.
Now that we have brief summaries of each passage, we can see how those summaries relate to one another. Do they agree? Disagree?
In this case, our two texts are in disagreement. The claims of the theorists in Text 1 are not supported by the findings of the researchers in Text 2.
Let's take a look at the choices, and see which one matches the relationship we just described:
Choice D suggests that the theorists claim "holds true" in the researchers study. We found the exact opposite. We can eliminate this choice.
Choice B goes beyond what we learn about the researchers in Text 2. It suggests that they didn't like the theory in Text 1 even before they did their research. However, the text never tells us this; it simply reports on their experiment. We can eliminate this choice.
Choice A suggests that, despite their research findings, the scientists in Text 2 think that the theory in Text 1 is "largely correct". But the research findings directly oppose the theory, and it's never suggested in Text 2 that the researchers support the theory from Text 1. We can eliminate this choice.
Only choice C identifies the same disagreement that we identified in our summaries. While the theory from Text 1 sounds like it makes sense, the experiment in Text 2 showed a different result. Choice C is the answer.
View all questions of this test
Most Upvoted Answer
Text 1What factors influence the abundance of species in a given ecolo...
Explanation:

Interpreting Cáceres and colleagues' view
- Cáceres and colleagues would most likely describe the view of the theorists presented in Text 1 as "may seem plausible, but it is not supported by the research team's findings."
- This interpretation is based on the research conducted by Cáceres and colleagues in which they found little to no difference in species diversity in pools with a diverse mix of zooplankton species compared to those with a single species.
- The researchers' results suggest that historical diversity may not be a major driver of species abundance in ecological communities, contrary to what the theorists in Text 1 have argued.

Implications of the research
- The findings of Cáceres and colleagues challenge the traditional view that historical diversity strongly influences community diversity.
- It raises questions about the factors that truly drive species abundance in ecological communities and highlights the complexity of ecological dynamics.
- Further research may be needed to better understand the mechanisms behind species abundance and diversity in natural ecosystems.
Explore Courses for SAT exam

Similar SAT Doubts

Question based on the following passage.This passage is adapted from Joshua Foer, Moonwalking with Einstein: The Art and Science of Remembering Everything. ©2011 by Joshua Foer.In 2000, a neuroscientist at University CollegeLondon named Eleanor Maguire wanted to find outwhat effect, if any, all that driving around thelabyrinthine streets of London might have on(5)cabbies’ brains. When she brought sixteen taxidrivers into her lab and examined their brains in anMRI scanner, she found one surprising andimportant difference. The right posteriorhippocampus, a part of the brain known to be(10)involved in spatial navigation, was 7 percent largerthan normal in the cabbies—a small but verysignificant difference. Maguire concludedthat all of that way-finding around London had physicallyaltered the gross structure oftheir brains. The more(15)years a cabbie had been on the road, the morepronounced the effect.The brain is a mutable organ, capable—withinlimits—of reorganizing itself and readapting to newkinds of sensory input, a phenomenon known as(20)neuroplasticity. It had long been thought that theadult brain was incapable ofspawning newneurons—that while learning caused synapses torearrange themselves and new links between braincells to form, the brain’s basic anatomical structure(25)was more or less static. Maguire’s study suggested theold inherited wisdom was simply not true.After her groundbreaking study of Londoncabbies, Maguire decided to turn her attention tomental athletes. She teamed up with Elizabeth(30)Valentine and John Wilding, authors of the academicmonograph Superior Memory, to study tenindividuals who had finished near the top of theWorld Memory Championship. They wanted to findout if the memorizers’ brains were—like the London(35)cabbies’—structurally different from the rest of ours,or if they were somehow just making better use ofmemory abilities that we all possess.The researchers put both the mental athletes and agroup of matched control subjects into MRI scanners(40)and asked them to memorize three-digit numbers,black-and-white photographs of people’s faces, andmagnified images of snowflakes, while their brainswere being scanned. Maguire and her team thought itwas possible that they might discover anatomical(45)differences in the brains of the memory champs,evidence that their brains had somehow reorganizedthemselves in the process of doing all that intensiveremembering. But when the researchers reviewed theimaging data, not a single significant structural(50)difference turned up. The brains of the mentalathletes appeared to be indistinguishable from thoseof the control subjects. What’s more, on every singletest of general cognitive ability, the mental athletes’scores came back well within the normal range. The(55)memory champs weren’t smarter, and they didn’thave special brains.But there was one telling difference between thebrains of the mental athletes and the control subjects:When the researchers looked at which parts of the(60)brain were lighting up when the mental athletes werememorizing, they found that they were activatingentirely different circuitry. According to thefunctional MRIs [fMRIs], regions of the brain thatwere less active in the control subjects seemed to be(65)working in overdrive for the mental athletes.Surprisingly, when the mental athletes werelearning new information, they were engagingseveral regions of the brain known to be involved intwo specific tasks: visual memory and spatial(70)navigation, including the same right posteriorhippocampal region that the London cabbies hadenlarged with all their daily way-finding. At firstglance, this wouldn’t seem to make any sense.Why would mental athletes be conjuring images in(75)their mind’s eye when they were trying to learnthree-digit numbers? Why should they be navigatinglike London cabbies when they’re supposed to beremembering the shapes of snowflakes?Maguire and her team asked the mental athletes(80)to describe exactly what was going through theirminds as they memorized. The mental athletes saidthey were consciously converting the informationthey were being asked to memorize into images, anddistributing those images along familiar spatial(85)journeys. They weren’t doing this automatically, orbecause it was an inborn talent they’d nurtured sincechildhood. Rather, the unexpected patterns of neuralactivity that Maguire’s fMRIs turned up were theresult of training and practice.Q.As used in line 39, “matched” most nearly means

Question based on the following passage.This passage is adapted from Joshua Foer, Moonwalking with Einstein: The Art and Science of Remembering Everything. ©2011 by Joshua Foer.In 2000, a neuroscientist at University CollegeLondon named Eleanor Maguire wanted to find outwhat effect, if any, all that driving around thelabyrinthine streets of London might have on(5)cabbies’ brains. When she brought sixteen taxidrivers into her lab and examined their brains in anMRI scanner, she found one surprising andimportant difference. The right posteriorhippocampus, a part of the brain known to be(10)involved in spatial navigation, was 7 percent largerthan normal in the cabbies—a small but verysignificant difference. Maguire concludedthat all of that way-finding around London had physicallyaltered the gross structure oftheir brains. The more(15)years a cabbie had been on the road, the morepronounced the effect.The brain is a mutable organ, capable—withinlimits—of reorganizing itself and readapting to newkinds of sensory input, a phenomenon known as(20)neuroplasticity. It had long been thought that theadult brain was incapable ofspawning newneurons—that while learning caused synapses torearrange themselves and new links between braincells to form, the brain’s basic anatomical structure(25)was more or less static. Maguire’s study suggested theold inherited wisdom was simply not true.After her groundbreaking study of Londoncabbies, Maguire decided to turn her attention tomental athletes. She teamed up with Elizabeth(30)Valentine and John Wilding, authors of the academicmonograph Superior Memory, to study tenindividuals who had finished near the top of theWorld Memory Championship. They wanted to findout if the memorizers’ brains were—like the London(35)cabbies’—structurally different from the rest of ours,or if they were somehow just making better use ofmemory abilities that we all possess.The researchers put both the mental athletes and agroup of matched control subjects into MRI scanners(40)and asked them to memorize three-digit numbers,black-and-white photographs of people’s faces, andmagnified images of snowflakes, while their brainswere being scanned. Maguire and her team thought itwas possible that they might discover anatomical(45)differences in the brains of the memory champs,evidence that their brains had somehow reorganizedthemselves in the process of doing all that intensiveremembering. But when the researchers reviewed theimaging data, not a single significant structural(50)difference turned up. The brains of the mentalathletes appeared to be indistinguishable from thoseof the control subjects. What’s more, on every singletest of general cognitive ability, the mental athletes’scores came back well within the normal range. The(55)memory champs weren’t smarter, and they didn’thave special brains.But there was one telling difference between thebrains of the mental athletes and the control subjects:When the researchers looked at which parts of the(60)brain were lighting up when the mental athletes werememorizing, they found that they were activatingentirely different circuitry. According to thefunctional MRIs [fMRIs], regions of the brain thatwere less active in the control subjects seemed to be(65)working in overdrive for the mental athletes.Surprisingly, when the mental athletes werelearning new information, they were engagingseveral regions of the brain known to be involved intwo specific tasks: visual memory and spatial(70)navigation, including the same right posteriorhippocampal region that the London cabbies hadenlarged with all their daily way-finding. At firstglance, this wouldn’t seem to make any sense.Why would mental athletes be conjuring images in(75)their mind’s eye when they were trying to learnthree-digit numbers? Why should they be navigatinglike London cabbies when they’re supposed to beremembering the shapes of snowflakes?Maguire and her team asked the mental athletes(80)to describe exactly what was going through theirminds as they memorized. The mental athletes saidthey were consciously converting the informationthey were being asked to memorize into images, anddistributing those images along familiar spatial(85)journeys. They weren’t doing this automatically, orbecause it was an inborn talent they’d nurtured sincechildhood. Rather, the unexpected patterns of neuralactivity that Maguire’s fMRIs turned up were theresult of training and practice.Q.Which choice provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?

Question is based on the following passage.This passage is adapted from Joshua Foer, Moonwalking with Einstein: The Art and Science of Remembering Everything. ©2011 by Joshua Foer.In 2000, a neuroscientist at University CollegeLondon named Eleanor Maguire wanted to find outwhat effect, if any, all that driving around thelabyrinthine streets of London might have on5 cabbies’ brains. When she brought sixteen taxidrivers into her lab and examined their brains in anMRI scanner, she found one surprising andimportant difference. The right posteriorhippocampus, a part of the brain known to be10 involved in spatial navigation, was 7 percent largerthan normal in the cabbies—a small but verysignificant difference. Maguire concluded that all ofthat way-finding around London had physicallyaltered the gross structure of their brains. The more15 years a cabbie had been on the road, the morepronounced the effect.The brain is a mutable organ, capable—withinlimits—of reorganizing itself and readapting to newkinds of sensory input, a phenomenon known as20 neuroplasticity. It had long been thought that theadult brain was incapable of spawning newneurons—that while learning caused synapses torearrange themselves and new links between braincells to form, the brain’s basic anatomical structure25was more or less static. Maguire’s study suggested theold inherited wisdom was simply not true.After her groundbreaking study of Londoncabbies, Maguire decided to turn her attention tomental athletes. She teamed up with Elizabeth30 Valentine and John Wilding, authors of the academicmonograph Superior Memory, to study tenindividuals who had finished near the top of theWorld Memory Championship. They wanted to findout if the memorizers’ brains were—like the London35cabbies’—structurally different from the rest of ours,or if they were somehow just making better use ofmemory abilities that we all possess.The researchers put both the mental athletes and agroup of matched control subjects into MRI scanners40 and asked them to memorize three-digit numbers,black-and-white photographs of people’s faces, andmagnified images of snowflakes, while their brainswere being scanned. Maguire and her team thought itwas possible that they might discover anatomical45differences in the brains of the memory champs,evidence that their brains had somehow reorganizedthemselves in the process of doing all that intensiveremembering. But when the researchers reviewed theimaging data, not a single significant structural50 difference turned up. The brains of the mentalathletes appeared to be indistinguishable from thoseof the control subjects. What’s more, on every singletest of general cognitive ability, the mental athletes’scores came back well within the normal range. The55memory champs weren’t smarter, and they didn’thave special brains.But there was one telling difference between thebrains of the mental athletes and the control subjects:When the researchers looked at which parts of the60 brain were lighting up when the mental athletes werememorizing, they found that they were activatingentirely different circuitry. According to thefunctional MRIs [fMRIs], regions of the brain thatwere less active in the control subjects seemed to be65working in overdrive for the mental athletes.Surprisingly, when the mental athletes werelearning new information, they were engagingseveral regions of the brain known to be involved intwo specific tasks: visual memory and spatial70 navigation, including the same right posteriorhippocampal region that the London cabbies hadenlarged with all their daily way-finding. At firstglance, this wouldn’t seem to make any sense.Why would mental athletes be conjuring images in75their mind’s eye when they were trying to learnthree-digit numbers? Why should they be navigatinglike London cabbies when they’re supposed to beremembering the shapes of snowflakes?Maguire and her team asked the mental athletes80 to describe exactly what was going through theirminds as they memorized. The mental athletes saidthey were consciously converting the informationthey were being asked to memorize into images, anddistributing those images along familiar spatial85journeys. They weren’t doing this automatically, orbecause it was an inborn talent they’d nurtured sincechildhood. Rather, the unexpected patterns of neuralactivity that Maguire’s fMRIs turned up were theresult of training and practice.Q. Which choice provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?

Question based on the following passage.This passage is adapted from Joshua Foer, Moonwalking with Einstein: The Art and Science of Remembering Everything. ©2011 by Joshua Foer.In 2000, a neuroscientist at University CollegeLondon named Eleanor Maguire wanted to find outwhat effect, if any, all that driving around thelabyrinthine streets of London might have on(5)cabbies’ brains. When she brought sixteen taxidrivers into her lab and examined their brains in anMRI scanner, she found one surprising andimportant difference. The right posteriorhippocampus, a part of the brain known to be(10)involved in spatial navigation, was 7 percent largerthan normal in the cabbies—a small but verysignificant difference. Maguire concludedthat all of that way-finding around London had physicallyaltered the gross structure oftheir brains. The more(15)years a cabbie had been on the road, the morepronounced the effect.The brain is a mutable organ, capable—withinlimits—of reorganizing itself and readapting to newkinds of sensory input, a phenomenon known as(20)neuroplasticity. It had long been thought that theadult brain was incapable ofspawning newneurons—that while learning caused synapses torearrange themselves and new links between braincells to form, the brain’s basic anatomical structure(25)was more or less static. Maguire’s study suggested theold inherited wisdom was simply not true.After her groundbreaking study of Londoncabbies, Maguire decided to turn her attention tomental athletes. She teamed up with Elizabeth(30)Valentine and John Wilding, authors of the academicmonograph Superior Memory, to study tenindividuals who had finished near the top of theWorld Memory Championship. They wanted to findout if the memorizers’ brains were—like the London(35)cabbies’—structurally different from the rest of ours,or if they were somehow just making better use ofmemory abilities that we all possess.The researchers put both the mental athletes and agroup of matched control subjects into MRI scanners(40)and asked them to memorize three-digit numbers,black-and-white photographs of people’s faces, andmagnified images of snowflakes, while their brainswere being scanned. Maguire and her team thought itwas possible that they might discover anatomical(45)differences in the brains of the memory champs,evidence that their brains had somehow reorganizedthemselves in the process of doing all that intensiveremembering. But when the researchers reviewed theimaging data, not a single significant structural(50)difference turned up. The brains of the mentalathletes appeared to be indistinguishable from thoseof the control subjects. What’s more, on every singletest of general cognitive ability, the mental athletes’scores came back well within the normal range. The(55)memory champs weren’t smarter, and they didn’thave special brains.But there was one telling difference between thebrains of the mental athletes and the control subjects:When the researchers looked at which parts of the(60)brain were lighting up when the mental athletes werememorizing, they found that they were activatingentirely different circuitry. According to thefunctional MRIs [fMRIs], regions of the brain thatwere less active in the control subjects seemed to be(65)working in overdrive for the mental athletes.Surprisingly, when the mental athletes werelearning new information, they were engagingseveral regions of the brain known to be involved intwo specific tasks: visual memory and spatial(70)navigation, including the same right posteriorhippocampal region that the London cabbies hadenlarged with all their daily way-finding. At firstglance, this wouldn’t seem to make any sense.Why would mental athletes be conjuring images in(75)their mind’s eye when they were trying to learnthree-digit numbers? Why should they be navigatinglike London cabbies when they’re supposed to beremembering the shapes of snowflakes?Maguire and her team asked the mental athletes(80)to describe exactly what was going through theirminds as they memorized. The mental athletes saidthey were consciously converting the informationthey were being asked to memorize into images, anddistributing those images along familiar spatial(85)journeys. They weren’t doing this automatically, orbecause it was an inborn talent they’d nurtured sincechildhood. Rather, the unexpected patterns of neuralactivity that Maguire’s fMRIs turned up were theresult of training and practice.Q.Which choice provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?

Question is based on the following passage.This passage is adapted from Joshua Foer, Moonwalking with Einstein: The Art and Science of Remembering Everything. ©2011 by Joshua Foer.In 2000, a neuroscientist at University CollegeLondon named Eleanor Maguire wanted to find outwhat effect, if any, all that driving around thelabyrinthine streets of London might have on5 cabbies’ brains. When she brought sixteen taxidrivers into her lab and examined their brains in anMRI scanner, she found one surprising andimportant difference. The right posteriorhippocampus, a part of the brain known to be10 involved in spatial navigation, was 7 percent largerthan normal in the cabbies—a small but verysignificant difference. Maguire concluded that all ofthat way-finding around London had physicallyaltered the gross structure of their brains. The more15 years a cabbie had been on the road, the morepronounced the effect.The brain is a mutable organ, capable—withinlimits—of reorganizing itself and readapting to newkinds of sensory input, a phenomenon known as20 neuroplasticity. It had long been thought that theadult brain was incapable of spawning newneurons—that while learning caused synapses torearrange themselves and new links between braincells to form, the brain’s basic anatomical structure25was more or less static. Maguire’s study suggested theold inherited wisdom was simply not true.After her groundbreaking study of Londoncabbies, Maguire decided to turn her attention tomental athletes. She teamed up with Elizabeth30 Valentine and John Wilding, authors of the academicmonograph Superior Memory, to study tenindividuals who had finished near the top of theWorld Memory Championship. They wanted to findout if the memorizers’ brains were—like the London35cabbies’—structurally different from the rest of ours,or if they were somehow just making better use ofmemory abilities that we all possess.The researchers put both the mental athletes and agroup of matched control subjects into MRI scanners40 and asked them to memorize three-digit numbers,black-and-white photographs of people’s faces, andmagnified images of snowflakes, while their brainswere being scanned. Maguire and her team thought itwas possible that they might discover anatomical45differences in the brains of the memory champs,evidence that their brains had somehow reorganizedthemselves in the process of doing all that intensiveremembering. But when the researchers reviewed theimaging data, not a single significant structural50 difference turned up. The brains of the mentalathletes appeared to be indistinguishable from thoseof the control subjects. What’s more, on every singletest of general cognitive ability, the mental athletes’scores came back well within the normal range. The55memory champs weren’t smarter, and they didn’thave special brains.But there was one telling difference between thebrains of the mental athletes and the control subjects:When the researchers looked at which parts of the60 brain were lighting up when the mental athletes werememorizing, they found that they were activatingentirely different circuitry. According to thefunctional MRIs [fMRIs], regions of the brain thatwere less active in the control subjects seemed to be65working in overdrive for the mental athletes.Surprisingly, when the mental athletes werelearning new information, they were engagingseveral regions of the brain known to be involved intwo specific tasks: visual memory and spatial70 navigation, including the same right posteriorhippocampal region that the London cabbies hadenlarged with all their daily way-finding. At firstglance, this wouldn’t seem to make any sense.Why would mental athletes be conjuring images in75their mind’s eye when they were trying to learnthree-digit numbers? Why should they be navigatinglike London cabbies when they’re supposed to beremembering the shapes of snowflakes?Maguire and her team asked the mental athletes80 to describe exactly what was going through theirminds as they memorized. The mental athletes saidthey were consciously converting the informationthey were being asked to memorize into images, anddistributing those images along familiar spatial85journeys. They weren’t doing this automatically, orbecause it was an inborn talent they’d nurtured sincechildhood. Rather, the unexpected patterns of neuralactivity that Maguire’s fMRIs turned up were theresult of training and practice.Q. Which choice provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?

Text 1What factors influence the abundance of species in a given ecological community? Some theorists have argued that historical diversity is a major driver of how diverse an ecological community eventually becomes: differences in community diversity across otherwise similar habitats, in this view, are strongly affected by the number of species living in those habitats at earlier times.Text 2In 2010, a group of researchers including biologist Carla Cáceres created artificial pools in a New York forest. They stocked some pools with a diverse mix of zooplankton species and others with a single zooplankton species and allowed the pool communities to develop naturally thereafter. Over the course of four years, Cáceres and colleagues periodically measured the species diversity of the pools, finding—contrary to their expectations—that by the end of the study there was little to no difference in the pools species diversity.Based on the texts, how would Cáceres and colleagues (Text 2) most likely describe the view of the theorists presented in Text 1?a)It is largely correct, but it requires a minor refinement in light of the research teams results.b)It is not compelling as a theory regardless of any experimental data collected by the research team.c)It may seem plausible, but it is not supported by the research teams findings.d)It probably holds true only in conditions like those in the research teams study.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Text 1What factors influence the abundance of species in a given ecological community? Some theorists have argued that historical diversity is a major driver of how diverse an ecological community eventually becomes: differences in community diversity across otherwise similar habitats, in this view, are strongly affected by the number of species living in those habitats at earlier times.Text 2In 2010, a group of researchers including biologist Carla Cáceres created artificial pools in a New York forest. They stocked some pools with a diverse mix of zooplankton species and others with a single zooplankton species and allowed the pool communities to develop naturally thereafter. Over the course of four years, Cáceres and colleagues periodically measured the species diversity of the pools, finding—contrary to their expectations—that by the end of the study there was little to no difference in the pools species diversity.Based on the texts, how would Cáceres and colleagues (Text 2) most likely describe the view of the theorists presented in Text 1?a)It is largely correct, but it requires a minor refinement in light of the research teams results.b)It is not compelling as a theory regardless of any experimental data collected by the research team.c)It may seem plausible, but it is not supported by the research teams findings.d)It probably holds true only in conditions like those in the research teams study.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 Text 1What factors influence the abundance of species in a given ecological community? Some theorists have argued that historical diversity is a major driver of how diverse an ecological community eventually becomes: differences in community diversity across otherwise similar habitats, in this view, are strongly affected by the number of species living in those habitats at earlier times.Text 2In 2010, a group of researchers including biologist Carla Cáceres created artificial pools in a New York forest. They stocked some pools with a diverse mix of zooplankton species and others with a single zooplankton species and allowed the pool communities to develop naturally thereafter. Over the course of four years, Cáceres and colleagues periodically measured the species diversity of the pools, finding—contrary to their expectations—that by the end of the study there was little to no difference in the pools species diversity.Based on the texts, how would Cáceres and colleagues (Text 2) most likely describe the view of the theorists presented in Text 1?a)It is largely correct, but it requires a minor refinement in light of the research teams results.b)It is not compelling as a theory regardless of any experimental data collected by the research team.c)It may seem plausible, but it is not supported by the research teams findings.d)It probably holds true only in conditions like those in the research teams study.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 Text 1What factors influence the abundance of species in a given ecological community? Some theorists have argued that historical diversity is a major driver of how diverse an ecological community eventually becomes: differences in community diversity across otherwise similar habitats, in this view, are strongly affected by the number of species living in those habitats at earlier times.Text 2In 2010, a group of researchers including biologist Carla Cáceres created artificial pools in a New York forest. They stocked some pools with a diverse mix of zooplankton species and others with a single zooplankton species and allowed the pool communities to develop naturally thereafter. Over the course of four years, Cáceres and colleagues periodically measured the species diversity of the pools, finding—contrary to their expectations—that by the end of the study there was little to no difference in the pools species diversity.Based on the texts, how would Cáceres and colleagues (Text 2) most likely describe the view of the theorists presented in Text 1?a)It is largely correct, but it requires a minor refinement in light of the research teams results.b)It is not compelling as a theory regardless of any experimental data collected by the research team.c)It may seem plausible, but it is not supported by the research teams findings.d)It probably holds true only in conditions like those in the research teams study.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Text 1What factors influence the abundance of species in a given ecological community? Some theorists have argued that historical diversity is a major driver of how diverse an ecological community eventually becomes: differences in community diversity across otherwise similar habitats, in this view, are strongly affected by the number of species living in those habitats at earlier times.Text 2In 2010, a group of researchers including biologist Carla Cáceres created artificial pools in a New York forest. They stocked some pools with a diverse mix of zooplankton species and others with a single zooplankton species and allowed the pool communities to develop naturally thereafter. Over the course of four years, Cáceres and colleagues periodically measured the species diversity of the pools, finding—contrary to their expectations—that by the end of the study there was little to no difference in the pools species diversity.Based on the texts, how would Cáceres and colleagues (Text 2) most likely describe the view of the theorists presented in Text 1?a)It is largely correct, but it requires a minor refinement in light of the research teams results.b)It is not compelling as a theory regardless of any experimental data collected by the research team.c)It may seem plausible, but it is not supported by the research teams findings.d)It probably holds true only in conditions like those in the research teams study.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 Text 1What factors influence the abundance of species in a given ecological community? Some theorists have argued that historical diversity is a major driver of how diverse an ecological community eventually becomes: differences in community diversity across otherwise similar habitats, in this view, are strongly affected by the number of species living in those habitats at earlier times.Text 2In 2010, a group of researchers including biologist Carla Cáceres created artificial pools in a New York forest. They stocked some pools with a diverse mix of zooplankton species and others with a single zooplankton species and allowed the pool communities to develop naturally thereafter. Over the course of four years, Cáceres and colleagues periodically measured the species diversity of the pools, finding—contrary to their expectations—that by the end of the study there was little to no difference in the pools species diversity.Based on the texts, how would Cáceres and colleagues (Text 2) most likely describe the view of the theorists presented in Text 1?a)It is largely correct, but it requires a minor refinement in light of the research teams results.b)It is not compelling as a theory regardless of any experimental data collected by the research team.c)It may seem plausible, but it is not supported by the research teams findings.d)It probably holds true only in conditions like those in the research teams study.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Text 1What factors influence the abundance of species in a given ecological community? Some theorists have argued that historical diversity is a major driver of how diverse an ecological community eventually becomes: differences in community diversity across otherwise similar habitats, in this view, are strongly affected by the number of species living in those habitats at earlier times.Text 2In 2010, a group of researchers including biologist Carla Cáceres created artificial pools in a New York forest. They stocked some pools with a diverse mix of zooplankton species and others with a single zooplankton species and allowed the pool communities to develop naturally thereafter. Over the course of four years, Cáceres and colleagues periodically measured the species diversity of the pools, finding—contrary to their expectations—that by the end of the study there was little to no difference in the pools species diversity.Based on the texts, how would Cáceres and colleagues (Text 2) most likely describe the view of the theorists presented in Text 1?a)It is largely correct, but it requires a minor refinement in light of the research teams results.b)It is not compelling as a theory regardless of any experimental data collected by the research team.c)It may seem plausible, but it is not supported by the research teams findings.d)It probably holds true only in conditions like those in the research teams study.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Text 1What factors influence the abundance of species in a given ecological community? Some theorists have argued that historical diversity is a major driver of how diverse an ecological community eventually becomes: differences in community diversity across otherwise similar habitats, in this view, are strongly affected by the number of species living in those habitats at earlier times.Text 2In 2010, a group of researchers including biologist Carla Cáceres created artificial pools in a New York forest. They stocked some pools with a diverse mix of zooplankton species and others with a single zooplankton species and allowed the pool communities to develop naturally thereafter. Over the course of four years, Cáceres and colleagues periodically measured the species diversity of the pools, finding—contrary to their expectations—that by the end of the study there was little to no difference in the pools species diversity.Based on the texts, how would Cáceres and colleagues (Text 2) most likely describe the view of the theorists presented in Text 1?a)It is largely correct, but it requires a minor refinement in light of the research teams results.b)It is not compelling as a theory regardless of any experimental data collected by the research team.c)It may seem plausible, but it is not supported by the research teams findings.d)It probably holds true only in conditions like those in the research teams study.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Text 1What factors influence the abundance of species in a given ecological community? Some theorists have argued that historical diversity is a major driver of how diverse an ecological community eventually becomes: differences in community diversity across otherwise similar habitats, in this view, are strongly affected by the number of species living in those habitats at earlier times.Text 2In 2010, a group of researchers including biologist Carla Cáceres created artificial pools in a New York forest. They stocked some pools with a diverse mix of zooplankton species and others with a single zooplankton species and allowed the pool communities to develop naturally thereafter. Over the course of four years, Cáceres and colleagues periodically measured the species diversity of the pools, finding—contrary to their expectations—that by the end of the study there was little to no difference in the pools species diversity.Based on the texts, how would Cáceres and colleagues (Text 2) most likely describe the view of the theorists presented in Text 1?a)It is largely correct, but it requires a minor refinement in light of the research teams results.b)It is not compelling as a theory regardless of any experimental data collected by the research team.c)It may seem plausible, but it is not supported by the research teams findings.d)It probably holds true only in conditions like those in the research teams study.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Text 1What factors influence the abundance of species in a given ecological community? Some theorists have argued that historical diversity is a major driver of how diverse an ecological community eventually becomes: differences in community diversity across otherwise similar habitats, in this view, are strongly affected by the number of species living in those habitats at earlier times.Text 2In 2010, a group of researchers including biologist Carla Cáceres created artificial pools in a New York forest. They stocked some pools with a diverse mix of zooplankton species and others with a single zooplankton species and allowed the pool communities to develop naturally thereafter. Over the course of four years, Cáceres and colleagues periodically measured the species diversity of the pools, finding—contrary to their expectations—that by the end of the study there was little to no difference in the pools species diversity.Based on the texts, how would Cáceres and colleagues (Text 2) most likely describe the view of the theorists presented in Text 1?a)It is largely correct, but it requires a minor refinement in light of the research teams results.b)It is not compelling as a theory regardless of any experimental data collected by the research team.c)It may seem plausible, but it is not supported by the research teams findings.d)It probably holds true only in conditions like those in the research teams study.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