Answer Choices
Some critics also worry that the ESA could have negative economic impacts, so
although there is disagreement about the terms that should be used,
critics do not always have suggestions about how the ESA might be improved
Because the act does not explain the meaning of "a significant portion"
Explanation for Question 36 From the Writing Section on the 2018 March Sat
How do y'all, um, question 36 is asking us which choice 2 best introduces the topic of this sentence. 3 So let's take a look at not only the sections that we're dealing with, 4 but the sentence beforehand, to get some, just extra good context for what we're 5 working with. Now, this reads the essay, 6 considers a species in danger. If it is in danger of extinction throughout 7 all, or a significant portion of its range, 8 many critics of the act are you that this ambiguous terminology hinders species from 9 being classified as endangered. Now here's an introduction to our sentence. 10 We're just gonna cut out the part we're working with scientists and government officials. 11 Must've find it for themselves in regards to the term for, 12 um, endangered and extinction. 13 Um, and they often reach for different conclusions. 14 So famously that we're being presented with an issue here as to 15 the ambiguous terminology that the ESA is using for an, 16 a species that is endangered. 17 Now, this sentence is telling us that scientists and government officials must define endangered 18 for themselves. They often end up with different results. 19 So let's look their answer choice and see which introduces the topic of this 20 sentence right here in response to our overall problem, 21 option a a no change is some critics also worry that the ESA could 22 have negative economic impacts. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with economic 23 impact. So we can just get rid of that answer. ...