Question

In sentence 19 (reproduced below), the writer is considering deleting the underlined phrase.

Resettled in the remote parts of the park, where salt licks are plentiful and hikers are scarce, the goats will likely regain their natural wariness of people.

Should the writer keep or delete the underlined phrase?

A. Keep it, because it adds descriptive language that helps readers visualize the area in the North Cascades where the goats were relocated.

B. Keep it, because it draws on evidence from the third paragraph to make a more persuasive case for why the North Cascades are a good place to resettle the goats.

C. Keep it, because it creates an emotionally resonant image of an environment in which the goats would be happy.

D. Delete it, because it undermines the passage’s argument by emphasizing the fact that the goats will no longer be seen by park visitors.

E. Delete it, because it introduces details that are irrelevant to the passage’s argument about the need to remove mountain goats from Olympic National Park.

Answer 1

B. Keep it, because it draws on evidence from the third paragraph to make a more persuasive case for why the North Cascades are a good place to resettle the goats.

Step-by-step explanation:

It is the Right Answer

Answer 2

B. Keep it, because it draws on evidence from the third paragraph to make a more persuasive case for why the North Cascades are a good place to resettle the goats.

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer B

Correct. The underlined phrase shows how the environment of North Cascades National Park—the presence of salt licks and the relative lack of hikers—makes it less likely that the safety concerns discussed in paragraph 3 will arise in the North Cascades. With easier access to salt that does not come from humans, the goats will pose less of a threat to humans. By making this logical connection between the evidence in paragraph 3 and the passage’s case for the necessity of the goat relocation program, the writer makes the argument more persuasive.