Question
A state was planning to construct several hundred miles of new railway in an area that was currently the habitat of many different plant and animal populations. During the planning stage, state officials asked two scientists to come up with plans to help reduce the impact of the railway construction on the biodiversity of the area. The two plans are described below.
Plans for Maintaining Biodiversity in Area Proposed for Railway Construction
Plan Plan Highlights
Plan A
Perform a wildlife survey to determine the best locations for construction based on the presence of endangered or threatened species.
Start construction of aboveground rail tracks in selected locations; as construction proceeds, create wildlife corridors that help connect divided animal populations to maintain genetic diversity in the region.
After construction is complete, replant with native plants along cleared construction areas where possible.
Continue to monitor the area for changes in populations and form new action plans as needed.
Approximate cost of plan: $5 billion
Plan B
Perform a wildlife survey to determine the best locations for construction based on the presence of endangered or threatened species.
Dig large underground tunnels in selected areas in which all of the rail tracks will be constructed.
Line tunnels with concrete to provide stability, construct rail tracks, then cover the disrupted areas with soil and native plants so that the habitat is only minimally impacted by the presence of the underground railways.
Continue to monitor the area for changes in populations and form new action plans as needed.
Approximate cost of plan: $30 billion
It was determined that Plan B would likely limit habitat disruption better than Plan A. State officials, however, decided to go with Plan A.
Why did the state officials probably choose Plan A?
A.
The economic demands of Plan B were too high.
B.
Plan B would not have been as effective at maintaining biodiversity.
C.
Plan B would have caused many of the populations to go extinct.
D.
An aboveground track will look better than the underground one proposed by Plan B.
Plans for Maintaining Biodiversity in Area Proposed for Railway Construction
Plan Plan Highlights
Plan A
Perform a wildlife survey to determine the best locations for construction based on the presence of endangered or threatened species.
Start construction of aboveground rail tracks in selected locations; as construction proceeds, create wildlife corridors that help connect divided animal populations to maintain genetic diversity in the region.
After construction is complete, replant with native plants along cleared construction areas where possible.
Continue to monitor the area for changes in populations and form new action plans as needed.
Approximate cost of plan: $5 billion
Plan B
Perform a wildlife survey to determine the best locations for construction based on the presence of endangered or threatened species.
Dig large underground tunnels in selected areas in which all of the rail tracks will be constructed.
Line tunnels with concrete to provide stability, construct rail tracks, then cover the disrupted areas with soil and native plants so that the habitat is only minimally impacted by the presence of the underground railways.
Continue to monitor the area for changes in populations and form new action plans as needed.
Approximate cost of plan: $30 billion
It was determined that Plan B would likely limit habitat disruption better than Plan A. State officials, however, decided to go with Plan A.
Why did the state officials probably choose Plan A?
A.
The economic demands of Plan B were too high.
B.
Plan B would not have been as effective at maintaining biodiversity.
C.
Plan B would have caused many of the populations to go extinct.
D.
An aboveground track will look better than the underground one proposed by Plan B.
Answers
GPT-4o mini
The state officials probably chose Plan A because:
**A. The economic demands of Plan B were too high.**
While Plan B may have provided better conservation of biodiversity by minimizing habitat disruption, the significantly higher cost of $30 billion compared to Plan A's $5 billion likely made it less feasible financially for state officials. This suggests that economic considerations were a significant factor in their decision.
**A. The economic demands of Plan B were too high.**
While Plan B may have provided better conservation of biodiversity by minimizing habitat disruption, the significantly higher cost of $30 billion compared to Plan A's $5 billion likely made it less feasible financially for state officials. This suggests that economic considerations were a significant factor in their decision.