Question

Read this excerpt from Scott Benson’s response in paragraph 10.

So in this case, you can consume U.S.-caught seafood for one thing, at least that would probably [be] the lowest-hanging fruit that’s available to you. U.S. fisheries, with regard to swordfish, do a very good job and have a very low impact on leatherback turtles. If the other fisheries around the Pacific were able to achieve a similar result, I would feel pretty good about the prospect for leatherback turtles.

Which option best explains how these sentences connect ideas in the interview?
A. These sentences connect the idea that migrating leatherbacks cross the Pacific (paragraph 7) to the idea that non–U.S. Pacific fisheries should be better regulated.
B. These sentences connect the idea that migrating leatherbacks cross the Pacific (paragraph 7) to the idea that non–U.S. Pacific fisheries are causing their decline.
C. These sentences connect the idea that U.S. fisheries have found ways to protect leatherbacks (paragraph 8) to the idea that consumers should support these fisheries.
D. These sentences connect the idea that U.S. fisheries have found ways to protect leatherbacks (paragraph 8) to the idea that consumers should buy more seafood.

Answer 1

C. The sentences link the point that U.S. fisheries protect leatherbacks to the recommendation that consumers support (buy) U.S.-caught seafood as a practical step.