Text 1: Marine biologist Dr. Sophia Torres advocates for large marine protected areas (MPAs). "Ocean sanctuaries allow fish populations to recover, biodiversity to flourish, and ecosystems to rebuild," Torres writes. "The spillover effect means even nearby fishing grounds become more productive."
Text 2: Fisheries expert Captain James Morrison argues that MPAs harm local fishing communities. "Closing vast ocean areas devastates livelihoods," Morrison states. "Small-scale fishers who've fished these waters for generations lose access while industrial fleets simply move elsewhere. Conservation shouldn't come at the expense of vulnerable communities."
Based on the texts, Torres and Morrison would most likely disagree about which of the following?
Whether fish populations have declined in recent decades
Whether marine ecosystems require some form of protection
Whether MPAs ultimately benefit or harm fishing communities
Whether industrial fishing fleets cause environmental damage
Correct Answer: C
Choice C is the correct answer. Torres argues MPAs benefit fishing through "spillover effects" that make nearby grounds "more productive." Morrison argues MPAs "devastate livelihoods" of fishing communities. They directly disagree on the impact on fishers.
- Evidence: Torres sees benefits for fishers; Morrison sees harm.
- Reasoning: This is the explicit point of contention between the texts.
- Conclusion: They fundamentally disagree on whether MPAs help or hurt fishing communities.
Choice A is incorrect because neither discusses historical population trends explicitly. Choice B is incorrect because both might agree protection is needed, just disagreeing on methods. Choice D is incorrect because neither directly discusses industrial fleet damage.