Soru

Zorluk: ZorCross-Text Connections: Perspective Comparison

Text 1
Paleontologist Dr. Sarah Chen argues that the sudden disappearance of the Ediacaran biota—soft-bodied organisms that thrived prior to the Cambrian explosion—was primarily driven by "biotic replacement." Chen posits that the emergence of complex Cambrian animals with novel behaviors, such as active burrowing and predation, disrupted the stable Ediacaran mat-dominated ecosystems, rendering their survival impossible. According to Chen, the extinction was a direct consequence of ecological exclusion by more competitive, evolutionarily advanced species.

Text 2
Geochemist Dr. Marcus Vance maintains that the Ediacaran extinction is best explained by global environmental disruptions rather than biological competition. Vance points to a sharp negative carbon isotope excursion recorded in the geological strata of the late Ediacaran period, which indicates widespread marine anoxia (a severe depletion of oxygen in the oceans). Vance contends that these hostile ocean conditions decimated the Ediacaran organisms, which lacked the respiratory adaptations to survive in low-oxygen environments, thereby clearing the ecological stage for the Cambrian organisms that arose later.

Based on the texts, how would Vance (Text 2) most likely characterize Chen's claim (Text 1) regarding the role of Cambrian animals in the disappearance of the Ediacaran biota?

  1. A
    As supported by geological records, though he disputes Chen's timeline regarding the transition between the two evolutionary eras.
  2. B
    As inaccurate, because Cambrian predators actually coexisted peacefully with Ediacaran biota in oxygen-rich zones.
  3. As incorrect, because geological evidence suggests that the extinction of the Ediacaran organisms occurred due to environmental changes prior to the rise of Cambrian competitors.Cevap
  4. D
    As plausible, but incomplete because it fails to account for the respiratory adaptations that allowed Ediacaran organisms to survive in shallow waters.

Cevap

The correct answer states that Vance would view Chen's claim as incorrect because geological evidence suggests that the extinction of the Ediacaran organisms occurred due to environmental changes prior to the rise of Cambrian competitors.
The correct option is supported by Text 2, where Vance argues that the Ediacaran extinction was driven by global environmental disruptions (specifically, marine anoxia) rather than biological competition. Crucially, Vance states that these hostile conditions decimated Ediacaran organisms, "thereby clearing the ecological stage for the Cambrian organisms that arose later." Because Vance asserts that the Cambrian organisms appeared only after the Ediacaran biota had already gone extinct, he would view Chen's claim—that Cambrian predation and burrowing caused the extinction—as chronologically and causally incorrect.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze Text 1 to identify Chen's main argument regarding the Ediacaran extinction.
Chen claims that the Ediacaran extinction was caused by biological competition ("biotic replacement") from newly emerged Cambrian animals.
To understand the claim that Vance is reacting to.
2
Analyze Text 2 to identify Vance's stance on the extinction and the timeline of Cambrian organisms.
Vance argues that the extinction was caused by marine anoxia, which decimated the Ediacaran organisms and "cleared the ecological stage" for Cambrian organisms that "arose later."
To determine how Vance's timeline and causal factors compare to Chen's.
3
Synthesize the two perspectives to determine how Vance would view Chen's argument.
Since Vance believes the extinction happened before the Cambrian organisms arose, he would characterize Chen's claim of Cambrian-driven competition as incorrect because the competitors were not yet present.
To find the relationship that matches the correct option.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating cross-text perspectives by comparing causal arguments and chronological relationships between two scholarly passages.
Bu soruyu puanla