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.

Question

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.

1. Which context clue strategy does the author use for the term "de-extinction"?

(1 point)
Responses

synonym
synonym

antonym
antonym

inference
inference

explanation/example
explanation/example
Question 2
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.
Scientists can extract DNA.
Question 3
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.
We should not bring back extinct species.
Skip to navigation

Answer 1

1. The author uses the "explanation/example" context clue strategy for the term "de-extinction." The author explains the process of how scientists aim to achieve de-extinction by extracting DNA from museum specimens and splicing it into the cells of similar living species.

2. The central idea of section #1 is that scientists are able to engineer extinct animals back into existence.

3. Without the actual text of the last sentence of section #1, it is not possible to determine which position the author shows bias toward. However, the author introduces a debate on the ethics of de-extinction, presenting the idea that there are arguments both for and against bringing back extinct species. This introduction suggests that the author might be setting the stage for a discussion on the ethical considerations rather than displaying a clear bias toward one position over the other. To accurately determine the author's position, one would need to analyze the specific language and arguments presented at the end of section #1.