RC Question 18 Explanation
DISCUSSION: Patterson and Flint are mentioned in line 25. They claim that weeds may harm crops. The weeds will grow faster, relative to crops, thanks to CO2.
It’s possible that crops will grow faster, as long as weeds grow even faster.
___________
- We don’t know what the scientists think about most plants. We only know what they think about a few weeds.
- Patterson and Flint didn’t say if crops would grow slower. They just said weeds will grow faster, which has the same effect. The crops grow more slowly, relative to weeds.
- The researchers argue the opposite. Lines 22-25 say that plants with low photosynthetic efficiency are currently slower to grow, but they’ll likely grow better if CO2 increases.
- CORRECT. This is true. The two researchers agree that some weeds will grow faster relative to some crops.
- We have no idea. Those plants might see increased growth, but weeds will grow even faster, unfortunately.
For future students, B is incorrect because it is extreme (“most crops”), and not for the reasoning outlined above.
1. B doesn’t state that the crops will grow slowly as you stated, just that increasing levels of CO2 will “inhibit the growth of most crops.”
2. Let’s say B stated that the crops are growing slowly. The passage stated that “important crops may experience yield reductions of the increased performance of certain weeds.” So even so, your reasoning is still incorrect because of this part of the passage. The crops ARE growing slower (their growth is being inhibited by the weeds – yield reduction). They are not growing at the same rate, and the weeds just growing faster, which would make it relative, as you said.
The “most” is another valid reason to eliminate the answer. But you’re putting words into Patterson and Flint’s mouths.
Let’s imagine we had corn and sugarcane growing in a higher CO2 world. And we meticulously removed all weeds. Would Patterson and Flint say their growth is inhibited in that case? The passage doesn’t support such a deduction.
In fact one of the major risks to weed growth was fires (see lines 30-35).
I appreciate your participation here. But I’ve noticed you tend to stick on a single explanation, and then use that to see things in the passage that aren’t there.
Inhibit the growth pretty plainly refers to how well plants would grow in a high CO2 world. Saying that a giant fire “inhibits growth” is stretching the meaning of those words to include something it wouldn’t ordinarily refer to. We don’t say that the great Chicago fire “inhibited the growth” of the city. We say that it destroyed it.