2. What is the central idea of section #1?(1 point)
Responses
Wooly mammoths lived in the Arctic over 40,000 years ago.
Wooly mammoths lived in the Arctic over 40,000 years ago.
Scientists are able to engineer extinct animals back into existence.
Scientists are able to engineer extinct animals back into existence.
Passenger pigeons went extinct in 1914.
Passenger pigeons went extinct in 1914.
Scientists can extract DNA.
Section #1
The idea of bringing extinct species back to life is known as “de-extinction,” and it’s now a legitimate scientific field. By extracting DNA from museum specimens and splicing it into the cells of similar living species, scientists say they can engineer animals back into existence. Researchers have started thinking seriously about which extinct species to focus their efforts on. Near the top of most lists are the woolly mammoth, which lived in the Arctic and went extinct about 4,000 years ago, and the passenger pigeon, which was once the most common bird in North America but went extinct in 1914.
But just because scientists may be able to bring species back doesn’t mean they should. Two scientists debate the ethics of de-extinction.
The central idea of section #1 is that scientists are able to engineer extinct animals back into existence by extracting DNA from museum specimens and splicing it into the cells of similar living species.
a b c or d
c) Scientists can extract DNA.
3. Examine the author's word choice at the end of section #1. Which position does the author seem to show bias toward? In other words, which position does the author seem to agree with?(1 point)
Responses
We should bring back extinct species.
We should bring back extinct species.
We should not bring back extinct species.
The author's word choice at the end of section #1 suggests a bias toward the position of "We should bring back extinct species."
Section #2
#1) Reviving an extinct species may sound like something out of Jurassic Park, but the science of de-extinction is real. It’s not possible to bring back dinosaurs because they’ve been extinct too long and their DNA is no longer salvageable. But new genetic technologies enable us to re-create more recently extinct species like passenger pigeons and woolly mammoths. Thinking of Jurassic Park, you might think de-extinction is threatening, but bringing back certain species has benefits.
#2) De-extinction could play a key role in healing damaged ecosystems, because it’s actually just an extension of good old-fashioned conservation work—the protection of existing animals and their environments. Conservationists have already had success returning living species to areas where they’ve died out. One example is the return of wolves to Yellowstone National Park. Their extermination a century ago led to environmental problems, such as the decline of certain trees. But just 20 years after conservationists returned wolves to Yellowstone, the ecosystem is much healthier. That’s because by eating elk, wolves give tree saplings a chance to grow. The young trees attract beavers, which make dams that draw birds and amphibians. More species thrive in the park today than when wolves were missing. De-extinction can do the same in other places.
#3) Finding wolves for Yellowstone was easy since they still lived in other places. But what about a species that no longer exists anywhere on Earth? De-extinction lets us bring them back too. More than 3 billion passenger pigeons once lived in North America’s forests. Their immense flocks created the diverse woodland habitats needed by hundreds of plants and animals. Since their extinction, diversity in forests has declined substantially, leaving many species struggling. Bringing back passenger pigeons would help save today’s threatened species.
#4) Not every extinct species will survive in modern times, and even fewer serve important roles for conservation. We need to focus on bringing back those critical extinct species that will help other living species.
—BEN J. NOVAK
Lead Researcher, Revive & Restore
4. Using context clues and your knowledge of word parts, what is the best definition for "salvageable" in the first paragraph of section #2?
(1 point)
Responses
able to be saved
able to be saved
saved before
saved before
the state of being saved
the state of being saved
without being saved
without being saved
Question 2
5. What is the author's main claim in the first paragraph of section #2?(1 point)
Responses
We should not revive extinct species because it is threatening.
We should not revive extinct species because it is threatening.
Jurassic Park is a great movie about de-extinction.
Jurassic Park is a great movie about de-extinction.
We should revive extinct species because there are benefits.
We should revive extinct species because there are benefits.
Dinosaur DNA is no longer salvageable.
Dinosaur DNA is no longer salvageable.
Question 3
6. Which of Novak's statements reveals his understanding that de-extinction is not a solution for all extinct species?(1 point)
Responses
"De-extinction lets us bring them back, too."
"De-extinction lets us bring them back, too."
"The young trees attract beavers, which make dams that draw birds and amphibians."
"The young trees attract beavers, which make dams that draw birds and amphibians."
"But new genetic technologies enable us to re-create more recently extinct species like passenger pigeons and wooly mammoths."
"But new genetic technologies enable us to re-create more recently extinct species like passenger pigeons and wooly mammoths."
"Not every extinct species will survive in modern times, and even fewer serve important roles for conservation."
"Not every extinct species will survive in modern times, and even fewer serve important roles for conservation."
Question 4
7. Which statement is an example of reasoning in Section #2? (HINT: Consider which statement is an opinion and not factual.)(1 point)
Responses
Conservationists have already had success returning living species to areas where they've died out.
Conservationists have already had success returning living species to areas where they've died out.
Their extermination a century ago led to environmental problems, such as the decline of certain trees.
Their extermination a century ago led to environmental problems, such as the decline of certain trees.
But just 20 years after conservationists returned wolves to Yellowstone, the ecosystem is much healthier.
But just 20 years after conservationists returned wolves to Yellowstone, the ecosystem is much healthier.
We need to focus on bringing back those critical species that will help other living species.
We need to focus on bringing back those critical species that will help other living species.
Question 5
8. How does Ben J. Novak mostly support his claim that reviving extinct animals is beneficial?(1 point)
Responses
by referencing a famous movie
by referencing a famous movie
by sharing the example of wolves in Yellowstone National Park
by sharing the example of wolves in Yellowstone National Park
by explaining that dinosaurs cannot be brought back
by explaining that dinosaurs cannot be brought back
by defining "conservation work"
answer all the questions
4. The best definition for "salvageable" in the first paragraph of section #2 is "able to be saved."
5. The author's main claim in the first paragraph of section #2 is "We should revive extinct species because there are benefits."
6. The statement by Novak that reveals his understanding that de-extinction is not a solution for all extinct species is "Not every extinct species will survive in modern times, and even fewer serve important roles for conservation."
7. The example of reasoning in Section #2 is "We need to focus on bringing back those critical species that will help other living species."
8. Ben J. Novak mostly supports his claim that reviving extinct animals is beneficial by sharing the example of wolves in Yellowstone National Park.
a b c or d
4. a) able to be saved
5. c) We should revive extinct species because there are benefits.
6. d) "Not every extinct species will survive in modern times, and even fewer serve important roles for conservation."
7. d) "We need to focus on bringing back those critical species that will help other living species."
8. b) by sharing the example of wolves in Yellowstone National Park
Section #3
#1) Scientists believe somewhere between 200 and 2,000 species become extinct every year—many more than official counts record. And that number could be even higher. By the time you go to bed tonight, one, 10, or maybe more species that have been on Earth for millions of years will be gone forever.
#2) Although de-extinction has been touted as a way of reversing this horrible trend, this argument doesn’t hold up. For the millions of dollars it would cost to bring one species back from extinction and support it in the wild, we could save dozens more species from going extinct in the first place. Because scientists have limited resources, a decision to do one thing is a decision not to do another: A decision to spend millions on resurrecting one species is a decision to neglect others and allow them to go extinct.
#3) The process of bringing back an extinct species is not only expensive, it’s risky. In most cases, the habitat for the extinct species people want to resurrect is gone or seriously altered. Mammoths, for example, went extinct after the Arctic began warming 10,000 years ago. It’s much warmer there now than it was then, and it’s getting hotter every year. The most likely result of bringing back extinct species is that we’d find ourselves trapped in a cycle where we would need to spend more and more money just to keep their tiny populations alive.
#4)Those who support bringing back extinct species will say that doing so will help support other species. But we already have many important species—such as elephants, tigers, and rhinos—that are in serious trouble. Why not work on keeping them alive? They’ll also argue that by resurrecting an extinct species, we’ll learn many lessons on genetics and breeding. But we can learn exactly the same lessons by working on trying to save living species. There’s also the risk that reintroducing long-extinct species will actually hurt the environment if these species spread out of control.
#5) The evidence is overwhelming: De-extinction is not a good investment for the environment. It may well be interesting science, but it’s not conservation.
—JOSEPH BENNETT
Assistant Professor of Biology, Carleton University
9. What strategy does Joseph Bennett use in section #3 that shows the reader he has considered different viewpoints?
(1 point)
Responses
responds to possible counterarguments
responds to possible counterarguments
uses data and statistics
uses data and statistics
uses anecdotes
uses anecdotes
uses testimonials
uses testimonials
Question 2
10. Which is a claim that Bennett disagrees with in section #3?(1 point)
Responses
De-extinction is too expensive.
De-extinction is too expensive.
De-extinction is risky.
De-extinction is risky.
De-extinction is harmful to the environment.
De-extinction is harmful to the environment.
De-extinction is helpful in understanding genetics and breeding.
De-extinction is helpful in understanding genetics and breeding.
Question 3
11. Which is an example of evidence? (HINT: Look for a statement of fact, not an opinion.)(1 point)
Responses
Although de-extinction has been touted as a way of reversing this horrible trend, this argument doesn't hold up.
Although de-extinction has been touted as a way of reversing this horrible trend, this argument doesn't hold up.
It may well be interesting science, but it's not conservation.
It may well be interesting science, but it's not conservation.
Scientists believe that somewhere between 200 and 2,000 species become extinct every year - many more than official counts record.
Scientists believe that somewhere between 200 and 2,000 species become extinct every year - many more than official counts record.
Why not work on keeping them alive?
a b c or d
all the ansers plz