To evaluate the relevance of each piece of evidence to the claim in the passage—which emphasizes the idea that wildlife species can be seen as "useless" or interesting from a human perspective, and that their value often lies in their intrinsic qualities rather than their utility—we can analyze each option as follows:
-
a description of a multicolored feather on a peacock
Yes - This supports the idea that wildlife can be interesting and beautiful regardless of usefulness. -
a description of a cozy sweater made from sheep wool
No - This pertains to utility (the sweater's usefulness) rather than the intrinsic interest of the animal producing the wool. -
a description of a gleaming pearl inside an oyster shell
No - Similar to the sweater, this emphasizes product utility (the pearl) rather than the inherent qualities of the oyster. -
a description of a feeder being visited by a hummingbird
Yes - This example illustrates the interesting behavior of a wildlife species (the hummingbird), aligning with the passage's theme about the fascination of animals beyond their usefulness.
Based on this analysis, the responses would be:
- a description of a multicolored feather on a peacock: Yes
- a description of a cozy sweater made from sheep wool: No
- a description of a gleaming pearl inside an oyster shell: No
- a description of a feeder being visited by a hummingbird: Yes