Passage An Early Warning
An Early Warning
One of the books that has done the most to alert the world to the dangers of environmental degradation is George Perkins Marsh’s Man and Nature. Its message—that Western society is in the process of causing irreparable harm to the environment—greatly influenced ecologists during the beginning of the modern environmentalist movement in the 1960s. Marsh was not, however, part of this movement. Surprisingly, Man and Nature was first published in 1864.
Marsh first observed the environmentally destructive effects of human activities while growing up in Vermont in the early nineteenth century. The heavy demand for firewood had depleted the forests, and extensive sheep grazing had stripped the land. The result was flooding and soil erosion. Furthermore, streams were fouled by wastes dumped from numerous mills and dye houses.
Much later in his life, after careers in law, business, farming, and politics, Marsh served as ambassador to Italy. There he noticed land abuse similar to what he had seen in Vermont. Overgrazing and forest mismanagement had rendered areas that had been productive farmland since the days of the Roman Empire desolate. Marsh attributed this to what he called “man’s ignorant disregard for the laws of nature.”
In Italy, Marsh began to organize his observations and theories. He wrote in a way intended to educate readers about the impact of industrial and agricultural practices on the environment. In Man and Nature, he evaluated the important relationships between animals and plants, discussed forestry practices in great detail, and analyzed the ways natural water supplies are affected by human use.
Man and Nature challenged the popular belief that nature can heal any damage that people inflict upon it. Marsh argued that people may use and enjoy, but not destroy, the riches of the earth.
Furthermore, he asserted that everything in nature is significant and that even the tiniest organism affects the fragile environmental balance. His belief that drastic alteration of this balance would be dangerous is now accepted as a fundamental principle of modern environmental science.
Although he pointed out environmental damage caused by irresponsible human activities, Marsh did not oppose every human alteration to the environment. To him, the goal was proper management, not a return to wilderness conditions. People should consider the consequences of their actions, he wrote, and become “co-worker[s] with nature.” Marsh praised the Suez Canal, the human-made waterway between the Mediterranean Sea and the Gulf of Aden, as “the greatest and most truly cosmopolite physical improvement ever undertaken by man.” He believed that the advantages of the canal— improved transportation and commerce—would outweigh any environmental damage. Yet he also warned of possible unintended consequences, such as destructive plants and animals spreading from one body of water to the other.
Marsh was considered a radical thinker during his lifetime. By the late nineteenth century, however, his writings, along with those of John Muir, Henry David Thoreau, and others, had inspired what became known as the conservation movement. The conservationists of that time sought to educate the public that wilderness areas were worth preserving and were responsible for creating the National Park Service and the National Forest Service.
Question
Marsh believed that the people of his time caused harm to the environment because
- Athey assumed that future generations would solve any environmental problems.
- Bthey thought industrial progress was more important than protecting nature.
- Cthey were unwilling to change farming and waste-disposal practices.
- Dthey lacked knowledge of nature and natural processes.
Show the answer
Correct answer: D
The answer is (D)
The question asks for the specific reason Marsh believed people caused harm to the environment. Marsh credited the land abuse he observed in Vermont and Italy to people’s lack of understanding, or ignorance, of nature (paragraph 3) and “the popular belief that nature can heal any damage that people inflict upon it” (paragraph 5). This concept is stated in Option D.
Option A is incorrect because, although people are currently working to improve the environment, the passage does not state that Marsh believed that people in his time expected future generations to solve environmental problems.
Option B is incorrect because, while the people of Marsh’s time made advances in industry, Marsh did not indicate that he believed that people thought industrial progress outweighed efforts to protect the environment.
Option C is incorrect because, while many people at the time participated in “environmental degradation” (paragraph 1), none of the evidence in the passage suggests that Marsh believed that people were unwilling to change their practices.
Question analysis
This reading question asks why George Perkins Marsh thought people of his time were harming the environment, based on a passage about his book Man and Nature. The reason appears in Marsh's own words, but several choices offer causes that sound reasonable for the nineteenth century without being what the passage says.
- NYS standards
- 7R1 textual evidence and inferences
- Grade level
- Grade 7 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- At grade 7 Locating the reason a text gives for a person's belief is ordinary grade 7 reading. The passage's vocabulary is heavy for grade 7, but the answer rests on one short phrase that students need to interpret.
- Estimated difficulty
- Straightforward: two steps or one careful reading.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 2, skills and concepts · mainly understand
- What makes it hard
- The right answer is reworded moderate
- Hard words minor
- Evidence
- Answered from several paragraphs or stanzas
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 12, 523 words; question and choices: about grade 9, 51 words.
- Students, last 30 days
- Not enough answers yet to show (it takes 10).
Why it is hard, traps and wrong answers (shows the answer)
Why it is hard
The answer rests on one quoted phrase in paragraph 3, but that phrase has to be read as a reason. A student who takes “disregard” to mean stubborn refusal will prefer reasons about unwillingness or about valuing industry, which feel like natural explanations for the damage in Vermont and Italy. Reading “ignorant” in its literal sense, not knowing, settles it.
The right answer is reworded moderate Choosing the answer
The right choice turns “man's ignorant disregard for the laws of nature” into “lacked knowledge”, while wrong choices reuse the passage's own words “industrial”, “farming” and “waste”. (Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)
Hard words minor Understanding the question
“Ignorant disregard” can be heard as deliberate neglect rather than not knowing, which pushes readers toward reasons about unwillingness or misplaced priorities. (Perfetti, 2007; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)
Strategy: Look for the words Marsh himself used to explain the damage he saw in Italy, and check them against the popular belief described in paragraph 5.
Traps
- Reads too much in: A reasonable-sounding conclusion that goes further than the text allows.
- Outside knowledge: A choice is plausible in the real world but not supported by this text.
The wrong answers, classified
A Outside knowledge (King et al., 2004; Recht & Leslie, 1988)
Supplies a modern-sounding excuse, leaving problems for future generations to solve, that appears nowhere in the passage and that Marsh never gives as a cause.
B Outside knowledge (King et al., 2004; Recht & Leslie, 1988)
Reaches for the familiar idea that the industrial age put progress before nature; the passage mentions industrial practices but never says Marsh blamed such priorities.
C Reads too much in (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994)
Combines the sheep grazing and mill waste of paragraph 2 with “disregard” read as stubbornness, concluding that people refused to change, a step the passage never takes.
Working it out, step by step
Figure out what the question asks
This asks for a reason. Why did Marsh think people of his time hurt the environment? You need the cause the passage says Marsh gave, not a cause that just sounds likely.
Find Marsh’s own words
In paragraph 3, Marsh sees ruined farmland in Italy. He blames it on what he called “man’s ignorant disregard for the laws of nature.” Paragraph 5 adds that his book challenged “the popular belief that nature can heal any damage that people inflict upon it.”
Work out what the words mean
Ignorant means not knowing. Here it does not mean rude. Disregard means not paying attention to something. The laws of nature are the ways nature works. So Marsh said people harmed the land because they did not understand how nature works. Paragraph 5 shows one thing they got wrong. They thought nature could fix any damage.
Check each choice
- D: “they lacked knowledge of nature and natural processes.” This matches “ignorant,” which means not knowing.
- A: the passage never says people expected future generations to fix things.
- B: the passage mentions “industrial and agricultural practices.” But it never says Marsh blamed people for caring more about industry.
- C: the passage describes sheep grazing and mill waste. But it never says people refused to change.
Watch out: “Ignorant disregard” can sound like people knew better and didn’t care. That reading pulls you toward C. But ignorant means they didn’t know.
Pick the answer
Marsh’s own word, “ignorant,” points to a lack of knowledge. So the answer is D.
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
C is the closest wrong answer. Paragraph 2 does describe harmful grazing and mill waste. But nothing says people were unwilling to change. Marsh blamed “ignorant” behavior, which means people didn’t know how nature works. That matches D.
More questions like this
The original DOE question

The passage “An Early Warning” as printed (page 52)
