To determine the author's main purpose in the article, we need to analyze the options provided:
A. Discussing various plant and animal species that are eusocial suggests a broader scope, which may not align with a focus on staghorn ferns.
B. Sharing findings that support the idea that staghorn ferns are eusocial implies that the article emphasizes new evidence or studies related to those specific plants.
C. Challenging claims that reject the idea that staghorn ferns are eusocial indicates a confrontational stance, where the author is refuting arguments against the eusociality of staghorn ferns.
D. Encouraging scientists to study other plant species that might be eusocial suggests an inspirational or motivational purpose to expand research in a specific field.
Without the specific content of the article, it's hard to definitively say which choice is correct. However, if the article primarily focuses on presenting evidence or arguments related to staghorn ferns' eusocial nature, then the best answer might be either B or C, depending on whether the author is introducing new findings or refuting existing claims.
If the article primarily supports the notion that staghorn ferns are eusocial, then B would be the best choice. If it primarily focuses on arguing against skeptics of that idea, then C would be more appropriate.
If I had to make a choice based on common scholarly pursuits, I might lean towards B as it suggests a positive contribution to the understanding of a niche subject area, which is often the focus in specialized articles.
Please confirm or provide context for a more precise answer!
1 answer