An unfamiliar subject
Question 1 of 3
2026 Practice Test C English, question 37Passage Excerpt from “Growing Peppers on the ISS Is Just the Start of Space Farming”
Excerpt from “Growing Peppers on the ISS Is Just the Start of Space Farming”
by Melanie Canales
The author, Melanie Canales, is a first-generation Peruvian American farmer and beekeeper based in Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley, on lands of the indigenous Monacan and Manahoac tribes. Her work focuses on creating healthy relationships between people and their surrounding ecosystems.
Unburdened by the constraints of gravity, red and green peppers jut out at 45-degree angles inside the Advanced Plant Habitat (APH), a sort of space terrarium not much larger than a microwave. Four chile pepper plants stand effortlessly upright, despite the dozens of glossy fruits weighing them down. These plants have lived entirely in space; their leaves have never been chewed on by insects or rustled by a summer breeze, [and] their stems are unfamiliar with bending toward the sun’s arc across the sky. Scissors glint under the tank’s white and blue lights as astronaut Mark Vande Hei and his team snip the stems of those that are ready for harvest. The peppers whirl around their heads until the astronauts catch them and tape them against a board to photograph.
Back on Earth, the Plant Habitat-04 team of engineers and plant scientists are observing and conferring with the astronauts. Of the 26 peppers in this batch, only the 14 finest will stay on the International Space Station [ISS] for consumption. The rest will be wrapped in foil, sealed in a Ziploc bag, then frozen at a brisk −80 degrees, until they can come roaring back to Earth in the next cargo capsule to be studied later. Now, after a 137-day growth cycle, the astronauts remove the plants from the module and trash them. Project Plant Habitat-04 is complete. It’s taco night on the ISS.
Since 2014, NASA1 has experimented with growing lettuces, brassicas,2 and zinnias3 in space, an endeavor that relies on highly specialized technology over 50 years in the making. [Fall 2021’s] two successful pepper harvests . . . will provide data on the nutritional and psychological benefits of growing vegetables on-craft, as well as a crop’s ability to reliably produce long-term in microgravity. While controlled environmental agriculture is not new, the APH experiment represents an evolution in specialized growth habitats. It doesn’t aim to re-create Earth’s conditions, but to perfect each isolated variable of plant growth in the clinical environment of a spaceship.
“The Advanced Plant Habitat is the most complex plant growth system on orbit today,” says Lashelle Spencer, a plant scientist at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center. Its more than 180 sensors control and monitor temperature, humidity, and carbon dioxide. The astronauts can adjust the color and intensity of the light, and how much moisture the plants’ roots are getting. It waters itself.
It’s the day after Thanksgiving, and Spencer has been at Kennedy since 5 a.m. to facilitate the peppers’ final harvest. As part of the project team, she played a crucial role in preparing the seeds that were sent hurtling into space in June and guiding the astronauts through maintaining the plants in orbit. . . . Though astronauts can spend upwards of 100 days in space, their on-mission meals come dehydrated and pre-packaged; their vitamins and minerals are isolated in supplements, which lose nutritional value the longer they’re stored. Spencer’s goal is to create the conditions necessary for cultivating healthy plants in space, so those plants can sustain healthy astronauts on long-term missions. Astronaut food is great, she says—“especially the shrimp cocktail. But you’re missing that crunch. You’re missing that fresh pop of flavor, the green flavor that’s not there in that packaged food.”
The sensory experience of growing productive crops can also help mitigate4 the psychological effects of long-term space travel. . . . Spencer says the team cracked open the door of the APH every day to observe their vegetable companions with all the tenderness of home gardeners. When harvest day came, they batted their bounty around the ISS, taking selfies and delighting in watching the fruits pirouetting around the spacecraft. . . .
“We were thinking no heat, so that [the peppers] wouldn’t be dangerous, but maybe the astronauts need a little spice in their life,” says Paul Bosland, who along with his colleagues at the Chile Pepper Institute genetically engineered5 the NuMex Española Improved chile pepper seeds grown in Plant Habitat-04. . . .
Working with NASA, Bosland cultivated a variety that could accommodate both the nutritional needs of astronauts as well as the logistics of growing a plant in space. . . .
. . . The experiment is helping gather the data necessary to determine the nutritional content of crops grown in space, and therefore how many people they can feed, and for how long. Though much is still unknown, Spencer is certain of one thing that future astronauts will need to do: “I think in an optimal world, a scientist like me would say that they would be growing plants from day one. From the day they left to the day they came back, they would be growing them.”
From “Growing Peppers on the ISS Is Just the Start of Space Farming” by Melanie Canales from WIRED, December 21, 2021. Copyright © 2021 Condé Nast. All rights reserved.
1NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
2brassicas: a large genus of herbs, such as broccoli and cabbage
3zinnias: a genus of herbs and low shrubs that have flowers at their heads
4mitigate: to make something less severe or harmful
5genetically engineered: combined parts of DNA from different plants to produce a new plant
Question
How does the author support the claim in paragraph 4 that the APH is a complex plant growth system?
- Aby indicating how many sensors help control the variables of plant growth
- Bby detailing how the method of growing plants has been adapted to the conditions of space
- Cby explaining the steps required to package and return the plants to Earth
- Dby describing how NASA has spent years experimenting with plants grown in a controlled environment
Show the answer
Correct answer: A
The question asks how the author supports the claim in paragraph 4 that the APH is a complex plant growth system.
A. CORRECT. The author supports the claim that the APH is a complex plant growth system by stating that it has “more than 180 sensors” that control and monitor temperature, humidity, and carbon dioxide (paragraph 4). These details, along with the description of how astronauts can adjust light and moisture via these sensors, directly illustrate the system’s complexity.
B. Incorrect. Although paragraph 4 describes some of the APH’s features, such as monitoring “temperature, humidity, and carbon dioxide,” it does not focus on how the key elements of plant growing are adapted to space conditions. The details instead emphasize the number of sensors and the variety of variables they control.
C. Incorrect. Although paragraph 2 mentions packaging and returning plants to Earth, the process does not directly contribute to the complexity of the APH system of growing plants in space.
D. Incorrect. While paragraph 3 references NASA’s experimentation “with growing lettuces, brassicas, and zinnias in space” since 2014 and how it relied “on highly specialized technology,” there is no indication in the paragraph that the APH system existed during the same time period or that the experiments relied on the complexity of a similar system.
Question analysis
Paragraph 4 of the excerpt quotes a NASA scientist calling the Advanced Plant Habitat “the most complex plant growth system on orbit today.” This evidence question asks how the author supports that claim. Students must trace a claim to the evidence offered for it and tell that evidence apart from other true facts the article gives about the pepper project.
- Grade level
- Grade 7 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- At grade 7 Tracing how an author supports a stated claim is standard grade 7 work, and the stem names the paragraph where the claim appears. The technical vocabulary of the article adds some load, but the task itself is routine.
- Estimated difficulty
- Straightforward: two steps or one careful reading.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 2, skills and concepts · mainly analyze
- What makes it hard
- How, not what minor
- An unfamiliar subject minor
- Evidence
- Answered from one paragraph or stanza
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 10, 890 words; question and choices: about grade 8, 74 words.
- Corrected from the DOE handbook
- A misquotation of the excerpt in the explanation was corrected.
- 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 claim and its support sit side by side in paragraph 4, so a student who rereads it finds the sensors at once. The wrong choices come from neighboring paragraphs: the habitat that does not copy Earth’s conditions, the frozen peppers and NASA’s work since 2014. Each is true of the article, so the question rewards matching the support to the claim’s own paragraph rather than to the article’s general themes.
How, not what minor Working it out
The stem asks how the claim is supported, so the answer is the evidence in the sentences right after the quotation, the “more than 180 sensors” and the controls they run. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)
An unfamiliar subject minor Understanding the question
Paragraph 4 describes a growth chamber in technical terms, sensors for temperature, humidity and carbon dioxide, and adjustable light and moisture, which students must picture without having seen anything like it. (Recht & Leslie, 1988; Kintsch, 1998)
Strategy: Find the sentence in paragraph 4 that makes the claim, read the sentences right after it, and choose the description that matches what those sentences actually offer as support.
Traps
- Wrong part of the text: A choice is true of another paragraph, stanza or speaker than the one asked about.
- True but not the answer: A choice says something accurate about the text that does not answer this question.
The wrong answers, classified
B Wrong part of the text (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)
Draws on paragraph 3’s point that the habitat perfects each variable instead of re-creating Earth’s conditions, but paragraph 4 supports its claim by counting sensors and controls, not by describing adaptation.
C Wrong part of the text (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)
Recalls the foil, the sealed bag and the freezing at −80 degrees in paragraph 2, a procedure after the harvest that says nothing about how the habitat works.
D True but not the answer (King et al., 2004; Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)
Remembers that NASA’s work since 2014 relies on “highly specialized technology,” which sounds like complexity, but it is paragraph 3’s history of the program, not evidence about this habitat.
What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why
- Explanation: The handbook’s explanation of Option D says NASA’s experimentation relied “on specialized technology.” Paragraph 3 says the endeavor “relies on highly specialized technology over 50 years in the making,” so the site now quotes “on highly specialized technology.”
Working it out, step by step
Figure out what the question asks
A claim is an idea the writer wants you to believe. Support is the proof given for it. Paragraph 4 claims the Advanced Plant Habitat (APH) is complex. Complex means it has many parts that work together. You need to find how the author backs that up.
Find the claim and what follows
Paragraph 4 opens with Spencer’s words: “The Advanced Plant Habitat is the most complex plant growth system on orbit today.” On orbit means circling Earth in space. The very next sentence gives the proof: “Its more than 180 sensors control and monitor temperature, humidity, and carbon dioxide.” Then the paragraph adds that the astronauts can change the light and the water.
Explain what the proof means
A sensor is a small device that measures something, like a thermometer. Humidity is how much water is in the air. To monitor means to keep checking. So the habitat has more than 180 measuring tools. They watch and control each condition the plants need. These conditions are called variables, things that can change, like heat and light. That big number of sensors shows how complex the habitat is.
Check each choice
- A is right. The author gives a number, “more than 180 sensors,” and says what they control.
- B is wrong. Paragraph 4 doesn’t explain how growing methods were changed for space. It counts sensors and lists what they control.
- C is wrong. Packing the peppers to send home is in paragraph 2. It says nothing about how the habitat works.
- D is wrong. Paragraph 3 says NASA’s work since 2014 relies “on highly specialized technology.” But that is the program’s history, not proof about this habitat.
Watch out: B sounds like it could describe a complex machine. But the proof sits right after the claim, and it is about sensors.
Choose the answer
The author shows the habitat is complex by counting its sensors and naming what they control. So the answer is A, “by indicating how many sensors help control the variables of plant growth.”
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
B is the closest wrong answer. Paragraph 3 does say the habitat “doesn’t aim to re-create Earth’s conditions.” But the question asks how paragraph 4 supports its own claim. Paragraph 4 does it with a count of sensors and a list of what they control. That matches A.
More questions like this
The original DOE question

The passage “Excerpt from “Growing Peppers on the ISS Is Just the Start of Space Farming”” as printed (pages 50–51)


Question 2 of 3
2024 Test A English, question 43Passage Excerpt from The Highest Tide
Excerpt from The Highest Tide
by Jim Lynch
The narrator’s summer job is collecting marine specimens in Puget Sound, Washington. In this excerpt, he is looking for specimens in the mudflats before daybreak. Mudflats, or flats, are coastal landforms created when sediment and silt from tides are deposited as the tides recede.
I rounded the oyster beds, to the far side. . . . It was low tide by then, and I saw the water hesitating at its apex, neither leaving nor returning, patiently waiting for the gravitational gears to shift. Dozens of anxious clams started squirting in unison like they did whenever vibrating grains of sand warned them predators were approaching. I stopped and waited with them, to actually see the moment when the tide started returning with its invisible buffet of plankton for the clams, oysters, mussels and other filter feeders. It was right then, ankle deep in the Sound, feet numbing, eyes relaxed, that I saw the nudibranch.1
In all my time on the flats I’d never seen one before. I’d read about them, sure. I’d handled them at aquariums but never in the wild, and I’d never even seen a photo of one this stunning. It was just three inches long but with dozens of fluorescent, orange-tipped hornlike plumes jutting from the back of its see-through body that appeared to be lit from within.
Nudibranchs are often called the butterflies of the sea, but even that understates their dazzle. Almost everything else in the northern Pacific is dressed to blend with pale surroundings. Nudibranchs don’t bother, in part because they taste so lousy they don’t need camouflage to survive. But also, I decided right then, because their beauty is so startling it earns them a free pass, the same way everyday life brakes for peacocks, parade floats. . . .
The dark mudflats loomed like wet, flattened dunes stretching deep into Skookumchuck Bay in front of our house. From a distance, they looked too barren to support sea life. Up close, they still did, unless you knew where to find the hearty clams, worms and tiny creatures that flourish in mud. . . . I’m not sure why I decided to take a look. It was still an hour before sunrise, and I knew exactly what the bars2 looked like in the moonlight, but for some reason, I couldn’t resist.
I heard it long before I saw it. It was an exhale, a release of sorts, and I instantly wondered if a whale was stranded again. We had a young minke3 stuck out there two summers prior, and it made similar noises until the tide rose high enough for rescuers to help free it. . . . I looked for a hulking silhouette but couldn’t find one. I waited, but there were no more sounds. Still, I went toward what I thought I’d heard, avoiding stepping into the mud until I had to. I knew the flats well enough to know I could get stuck just about anywhere. The general rule was you didn’t venture out past the shells and gravel with an incoming tide. I sank up to my knees twice, and numbing water filled my boots.
. . . I kept stepping toward the one sound I’d heard, a growing part of me hoping I’d find nothing at all. When I stopped to rest and yank up my socks, my headlamp crossed it. My first thought? A giant octopus.
Puget Sound has some of the biggest octopi in the world. They often balloon to a hundred pounds. Even the great Jacques Cousteau4 himself came to study them. But when I saw the long tubular shape of its upper body and the tangle of tentacles below it, I knew it was more than an octopus. I came closer, within fifty feet, close enough to see its large cylindrical siphon5 quiver. I couldn’t tell if it was making any sounds at that point, because it was impossible to hear anything over the blood in my ears. . . .
The creature’s body came to a triangular point above narrow fins that lay flat on the mud like wings, but it was hard to be sure exactly where it all began or ended, or how long its tentacles truly were, because I was afraid to pry my eyes off its jumble of arms for more than half a second. I didn’t know whether I was within reach, and its arms were as big around as my ankle and lined with suckers the size of half-dollars. If they even twitched I would have run. So, I was looking at it and not looking at it while my heart spangled my vision. I saw fragments, pieces, and tried to fuse them in my mind but couldn’t be certain of the whole. I knew what it had to be, but I wouldn’t allow myself to even think the two words. Then I gradually realized the dark shiny disc in the middle of the rubbery mass was too perfectly round to be mud or a reflection.
It was too late to smother my scream. Its eye was the size of a hubcap.6
From THE HIGHEST TIDE by Jim Lynch. Copyright © 2005 by Jim Lynch. Used by permission of Bloomsbury USA. All rights reserved.
1nudibranch: type of sea slug
2bars: sandbars
3minke: species of small whale
4Jacques Cousteau: renowned French oceanographer
5siphon: tube-like organ that is used for drawing in or removing fluids
6hubcap: removable cap over the end of a wheel axle
Question
In paragraph 3, the phrase “the butterflies of the sea” conveys the idea that
- Anudibranchs do not have to work as hard as other animals to survive in the ocean.
- Bnudibranchs have colorful features that make them stand out.
- Cnudibranchs are delicate and have trouble adapting to their environment.
- Dnudibranchs are rare and difficult to find in the ocean.
Show the answer
Correct answer: B
The question asks what idea the phrase “the butterflies of the sea” in paragraph 3 conveys.
A. Incorrect. While the narrator does say that they “taste so lousy they don’t need camouflage to survive” (paragraph 3), the phrase explains that their bright appearance poses no threat to their lives.
B. CORRECT. The narrator describes the vibrant colors of the nudibranch in paragraph 2. Then in paragraph 3, the narrator says that “their beauty is so startling.” The nudibranchs are colorful and unique, just as many butterflies are.
C. Incorrect. The narrator describes the distinct appearance of the nudibranch but does not suggest that nudibranchs struggle to adapt to their environment because of this trait.
D. Incorrect. In paragraph 2, the narrator states, “I’d handled them at aquariums but never in the wild, and I’d never even seen a photo of one this stunning.” Although this suggests that the narrator has rarely encountered a nudibranch in the wild, it does not suggest that they are rare in the wild in general.
Question analysis
This figurative-language question asks what the phrase “the butterflies of the sea” conveys about nudibranchs, the sea slugs the narrator spots on a Puget Sound mudflat in an excerpt from the novel The Highest Tide. Students must use the description around the phrase to decide which quality of butterflies the comparison points to.
- Grade level
- Grade 7 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- At grade 7 Interpreting a figurative comparison from context is standard grade 7 language work. The description around the phrase is vivid and close at hand, so the demand is typical, even though the creature itself may be unfamiliar.
- 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
- Figurative or literary language moderate
- An unfamiliar subject minor
- Evidence
- Answered from one paragraph or stanza
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 6, 902 words; question and choices: about grade 7, 58 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 nickname is explained in the same sentence, where the narrator says even it “understates their dazzle”, so the question is mostly a matter of reading on a few words. The trap is reading on too far: the next sentences explain why nudibranchs can afford to be showy, a different point. Students who bring their own idea of butterflies as fragile, or who turn the narrator's first sighting into rarity, drift away from what he stresses.
Figurative or literary language moderate Understanding the question
The comparison's point is supplied by the clause right after it, “even that understates their dazzle”, and by paragraph 2's fluorescent, orange-tipped plumes, not by anything butterflies are usually known for. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)
An unfamiliar subject minor Understanding the question
Few students have seen a nudibranch, footnoted only as a type of sea slug, so the picture of it must be built entirely from paragraph 2's description. (Recht & Leslie, 1988; Kintsch, 1998)
Strategy: Read the phrase with the sentence it sits in and the description of the nudibranch just before it, then decide which quality of butterflies the comparison is pointing to.
Traps
- True but not the answer: A choice says something accurate about the text that does not answer this question.
- Outside knowledge: A choice is plausible in the real world but not supported by this text.
- Reads too much in: A reasonable-sounding conclusion that goes further than the text allows.
The wrong answers, classified
A True but not the answer (King et al., 2004; Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)
Draws on the next sentences, which say nudibranchs taste too lousy to need camouflage, a real point about their survival but not what the butterfly comparison conveys.
C Outside knowledge (King et al., 2004; Recht & Leslie, 1988)
Brings in the familiar idea that butterflies are delicate, which the passage never uses; nothing suggests nudibranchs struggle to adapt, and the comparison is about their dazzle.
D Reads too much in (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994)
Turns the narrator never having seen one in the wild into a claim that nudibranchs are rare, which reflects his experience, not the meaning of the nickname.
Working it out, step by step
Spot the comparison
This asks about figurative language, words that compare two things to make a point. In paragraph 3, nudibranchs are called “the butterflies of the sea.” You need to decide which quality of butterflies the comparison points to.
Read the rest of the sentence
The sentence goes on: “but even that understates their dazzle.” To understate means to say less than the full truth. Dazzle means bright, eye-catching beauty. So the narrator means nudibranchs are even more dazzling than butterflies.
Look back at paragraph 2
Paragraph 2 describes the one he found. It had “dozens of fluorescent, orange-tipped hornlike plumes.” Fluorescent means glowing with bright color. Plumes are feathery tufts. Its body even seemed “to be lit from within.” Like a butterfly, it is bright and colorful, and it stands out.
Check each choice
- B fits: “colorful features that make them stand out” matches the glowing plumes and the dazzle.
- A is wrong because their bad taste explains how they survive, not what the butterfly phrase means.
- C is wrong because the passage never says nudibranchs are delicate or struggle to fit in.
- D is wrong because the narrator never seeing one in the wild is his own experience, not proof they are rare.
Watch out: A uses real details from the same paragraph. But they answer a different question: why nudibranchs can afford to be showy.
Choose the answer
The butterfly comparison points to the nudibranch’s bright, eye-catching colors. So the answer is B.
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
A comes closest, since the same paragraph says nudibranchs “don’t need camouflage to survive.” But that explains why they can afford to be bright. The butterfly phrase itself is about their beauty, which even the nickname “understates.” B names that beauty: colorful features that stand out.
More questions like this
The original DOE question

The passage “Excerpt from The Highest Tide” as printed (pages 64–65)


Question 3 of 3
2024 Test A English, question 53Passage Excerpt from “It’s Time to Stop Thinking That All Non-Native Species Are Evil”
Excerpt from “It’s Time to Stop Thinking That All Non-Native Species Are Evil”
by Emma Marris
The author of this opinion article attended a symposium, or conference, in Missoula, Montana, at which biologists and other scientists discussed species of plants and animals that are not native to the areas in which they live.
Invasive species are scary. It was ecologist Charles Elton, back in the 1950s, who introduced the militaristic “invasion” metaphor to describe exotic plants and animals—but there’s no question some can be extremely destructive.
The brown tree snake has eaten a dozen kinds of forest birds in Guam to extinction; zebra mussels clog pipes around the Great Lakes; the common house cat turns out to be, in Australia, a mercilessly effective killer of cute, fluffy marsupials like the bilby and the numbat.
As scientists have sounded the alarm about these pests, the public has gotten the message. Citizen groups rip out non-native plants. Native gardens have become increasingly popular, both as ways to celebrate the unique flora of each region and as tiny hot spots of diversity. Native trees provide food for native bugs, which feed native birds. Food chains developed over thousands of years of co-evolution unfold in our backyards. . . .
So we’ve learned, scientists and laypeople alike, that native species are good and non-natives are bad.
Julian Olden, a biologist at the University of Washington, Seattle, who co-organized the symposium, recently polled nearly 2,000 ecologists. Among his findings: a substantial number of them said they would immediately eradicate a hypothetical non-native forest plant, even if it were shown to have no effect on the forest. Olden calls this the “guilty even when proven innocent” approach.
That kind of approach is not very useful on a rapidly changing planet.
Exotics Are Everywhere
Climate change is making it harder even to decide who the invaders are.
How, scientists at the symposium wondered, do you define “native” on a warming planet, when plants and animals are already moving toward the poles or up mountainsides in search of climate conditions they can tolerate? Should we consider them “invasive” in their new homes? Regardless of what we label them, conservationists will be reluctant to remove them from their new environs—to do so would stymie1 their chances of adapting to the warmer future we’re creating.
And then there are the non-natives that we actually like. Most domestic crops are exotic in most of the places they’re grown, but there are even wild exotics that “do good,” forming useful relationships with native species.
Edwin Grosholz of the University of California, Davis, told the recent symposium about one such relationship. On beaches in his state, non-native spartina grass has become important habitat for the endangered California clapper rail, a plump shorebird with a downward curving bill more at home on land than in the air. A project to rip out and poison the spartina—which grows in dense swaths that exclude many other shorebirds—saw clapper rail numbers go tumbling downward.
There are other examples like that. The endangered southwestern willow flycatcher nests in “invasive” tamarisk shrubs. Many native (and beautiful) Hawaiian flowers are now pollinated by the Japanese white-eye bird—because the native pollinators have been driven extinct by other non-native species.
Should we impose further risk on already endangered natives by severing these relationships? Or should we admire the resilience of nature and let such “well-behaved” exotics stay? . . .
Leave them alone, more and more conservationists are arguing, and stop focusing obsessively on categorizing species as native or non-native. Mark Davis, an ecologist at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota, once considered himself an “invasion biologist”—but not anymore. “I am actively trying to get the field to retire the invader narrative,” he said in Missoula.
A Good Thing, Not the Only Thing
After all, nativeness is just one environmental value, and arguably not as important as preventing extinctions and preserving biodiversity. In some cases we can best serve biodiversity by leaving the non-natives alone or even—brace yourself, now—introducing them on purpose.
This is the thinking behind, for example, installing the Aldabra tortoise on the islands of Mauritius. The islands lost their own large tortoises, and the fruiting plants that formerly had their seeds moved around by these fruit-loving reptiles have been on the decline. A tortoise that’s related to the island’s large tortoises—a non-native from the Seychelles in the Indian Ocean that was intentionally introduced in 2004—is now handling some of that work.
Most of the time, for the time being, conserving species still means focusing on supporting them in their historical habitats, planting natives and removing non-natives. We can and should do that in places where it is feasible and important to us.
From “It’s Time to Stop Thinking That All Non-Native Species Are Evil” by Emma Marris from NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC MAGAZINE, July 24, 2014. Copyright © 2014 by National Geographic Society.

1stymie: hinder or interfere with
Question
The author’s use of cause and effect in paragraphs 10–11 mainly emphasizes the idea that
- Asome non-native species have helped their environments while others have had harmful impacts.
- Battempts to remove non-native species have seldom produced desired results.
- Csome endangered native species have flourished because of the presence of non-native species.
- Dinteractions between endangered native species and non-native species must be carefully monitored.
Show the answer
Correct answer: C
The question asks what the author’s use of cause and effect in paragraphs 10–11 mainly emphasizes.
A. Incorrect. The examples of cause and effect discussed in paragraphs 10–11, such as the spartina grass helping the clapper rail and the Japanese white-eye bird pollinating Hawaiian flowers, are all instances in which non-native species have helped their new environments.
B. Incorrect. While paragraph 10 does mention that efforts to eradicate the non-native spartina grass hurt the native clapper rail shorebird, the main emphasis in both paragraphs 10–11 is on the fact that certain non-native species have helped native species.
C. CORRECT. Paragraphs 10–11 focus on several examples of non-native species that have helped endangered native species flourish: non-native spartina grass providing “important habitat for the endangered California clapper rail” (paragraph 10), non-native tamarisk shrubs providing nesting places for the endangered southwestern willow flycatcher (paragraph 11), and the non-native Japanese white-eye bird pollinating Hawaiian flowers (paragraph 11).
D. Incorrect. While paragraphs 10–11 describe several interactions between non-native and native species, they never discuss monitoring these interactions.
Question analysis
This text-structure question asks what the cause-and-effect examples in two paragraphs of an article about non-native species mainly emphasize. The paragraphs describe a shorebird, a flycatcher and Hawaiian flowers, and students must decide what the examples have in common rather than fixing on any one of them.
- Grade level
- Grade 8 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- Above grade 7 Analyzing what a cause-and-effect structure emphasizes is grade 7 work, but these examples involve unfamiliar species and endangered status, and more than one choice is partly supported by the paragraphs, which raises the demand above typical.
- Estimated difficulty
- Hard: combines ideas, needs a plan, and has more than one tempting wrong answer.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 3, strategic thinking · mainly analyze
- What makes it hard
- A very close wrong answer major
- Reading between the lines moderate
- An unfamiliar subject minor
- Evidence
- Answered from several paragraphs or stanzas
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 11, 815 words; question and choices: about grade 11, 62 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 paragraphs mention harm as well as help, so a balanced statement about both looks accurate and even fair-minded. What the cause-and-effect pairs stress, though, is endangered natives depending on non-natives, and the right answer captures that while overstating it, since a bird whose numbers held up only with spartina's help can hardly be said to have flourished. Students must prefer the statement of the main emphasis to one that is partly supported but off the point.
A very close wrong answer major Choosing the answer
The right choice and the help-and-harm choice both say non-natives have aided their surroundings; they part on harm, which the paragraphs do mention, spartina crowding out shorebirds and other non-natives killing Hawaii's pollinators, but only in passing. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)
Reading between the lines moderate Working it out
Paragraph 10 states its cause and effect backwards, removing spartina sent clapper rail numbers “tumbling downward”, and the student must turn that around into the grass's presence helping the bird. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)
An unfamiliar subject minor Understanding the question
Five unfamiliar species crowd two paragraphs, spartina grass, the California clapper rail, tamarisk shrubs, the southwestern willow flycatcher and the Japanese white-eye, and each one's role must be kept straight. (Recht & Leslie, 1988; Kintsch, 1998)
Strategy: List each cause-and-effect pair in paragraphs 10 and 11, the species involved and what happened to them, then pick the statement that holds for the examples taken together.
Traps
- Too narrow: A single detail offered as the central idea or a summary, or a summary that keeps minor details and leaves out an essential part.
- Too broad or too strong: A choice overstates, generalizes, or uses absolute words the text does not support.
- Outside knowledge: A choice is plausible in the real world but not supported by this text.
The wrong answers, classified
A Too narrow (King et al., 2004)
Accurately notes helpful and harmful non-natives, but the harm is mentioned only in passing, and it leaves out what every example stresses, endangered natives depending on non-natives.
B Too broad or too strong (King et al., 2004)
Generalizes from the single spartina project in paragraph 10 to removal attempts in general, a “seldom” claim that neither paragraph makes.
D Outside knowledge (King et al., 2004; Recht & Leslie, 1988)
Adds a sensible-sounding call for careful monitoring, the kind of advice scientists often give, but neither paragraph says anything about watching over these relationships.
Working it out, step by step
Know what the question asks
In a cause-and-effect pattern, one thing makes another happen. You need the main idea that the causes and effects in paragraphs 10 and 11 stress. Start by listing each pair.
List each cause and effect
- Paragraph 10: non-native spartina grass gives the endangered clapper rail a home, so when people ripped out the grass, clapper rail numbers went “tumbling downward.”
- Paragraph 11: the endangered willow flycatcher nests in non-native tamarisk shrubs.
- Paragraph 11: native Hawaiian flowers are now pollinated by a non-native bird, the Japanese white-eye.
Find the common thread
Endangered means at risk of dying out. Pollinated means a bird or bug carries pollen between flowers so they can make seeds. In every pair, a native species depends on a non-native one. The newcomer gives it a home, a place to nest or a pollinator. Two of the natives, the clapper rail and the flycatcher, are endangered. So the paragraphs stress that some endangered natives do better because non-natives are there.
Check each choice
- C fits: some endangered natives have “flourished,” or done well, because non-natives are present.
- A is wrong because harm comes up only in passing, while every example stresses a native getting help.
- B is wrong because one removal project is not enough to say removal “seldom” works.
- D is wrong because the paragraphs never mention monitoring, or watching over, these relationships.
Watch out: The paragraphs do mention harm. Spartina crowds out some other shorebirds, and other non-natives wiped out Hawaii’s native pollinators. So A sounds balanced, but it misses the main point.
Choose the answer
The causes and effects show struggling natives, two of them endangered, helped by non-natives. So the answer is C.
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
A comes closest, because the paragraphs mention harm as well as help. But the harm is only a side note. Every cause and effect shows a native relying on a non-native, and two of those natives are endangered birds. C names that main point, even though “flourished” is a strong word for birds that are still endangered.
More questions like this
The original DOE question

The passage “Excerpt from “It’s Time to Stop Thinking That All Non-Native Species Are Evil”” as printed (pages 68–70)


