Question

The passage given below is followed by four summaries. Choose the option that best captures the essence of the passage.
For millennia, in the process of opening up land for agriculture, gardens, grazing and hunting, humans have created ecological “mosaics”, or “patchworks”: landscapes holding a mixture of habitats, like meadows, gardens and forests. These were not designed as nature reserves, but often catered to hugely diverse animal life. Research indicates that European hay meadows cultivated for animal feed were actually more successful at preserving a vast array of species than meadows explicitly cultivated for biodiversity. Studying the early Holocene, researchers have found that human presence was about as likely to increase biodiversity as reduce it. Of course, not all human-created landscapes have the same value. A paved subdivision with astroturfed lawns is very different to a village with diverse vegetable and flower gardens. But scientists continue to find evidence that the old idea of humans as antithetical to nature is also wrong-headed, and that rosy visions of thriving, human-free environments are more imaginary than real.

• A. Contrary to the idea that humans always hurt nature and that it thrives in their absence, a lot of human action across history has been equally likely to increase biodiversity than reduce it, often creating varied ecological landscapes that support a vast array of species.
• B. In our attempts to shape the world around us to our needs, humans have often created landscapes like meadows, gardens, and forests, which support hugely diverse species, and are more successful at preserving them than parks created specifically for this.
• C. Studying the early Holocene and human practices over millennia, researchers say that while agricultural meadows, gardens, and forests were not explicitly designed as nature reserves, they actually preserved a vast array of species, belying the idea that humans harm nature.
• D. In terms of preserving biodiversity, scientists are finding increasing evidence that human action is not always antithetical to nature, but often assists the preservation of meadows, landscapes, and flourishing of species.

Hint:

Human activity can often support biodiversity through the creation of diverse landscapes, such as gardens and meadows, which can be as effective as natural reserves in preserving species.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Approach: A best-summary answer must carry the passage's central claim, here a counter-intuitive one. Pin down the exact thesis, then pick the option that states it without shrinking or overstating it.

Step 1: The thesis. The passage attacks two beliefs at once \(--\) that "humans are antithetical to nature" and that "human-free environments thrive." Its evidence: human-made mosaics support diverse life, and in the early Holocene human presence was "about as likely to increase biodiversity as reduce it." So the core is: contrary to the human-free-is-better view, human action has been roughly as likely to help biodiversity as to harm it, often building varied species-rich landscapes.

Step 2: Why Option 1. It names both halves \(--\) the rebuttal ("contrary to the idea that humans always hurt nature and that it thrives in their absence") and the finding ("equally likely to increase biodiversity than reduce it... varied ecological landscapes that support a vast array of species"). It is the only option that keeps the "equally likely" balance, which is the passage's sharpest point.

Step 3: Eliminate. Option 2 over-claims \(--\) it says human landscapes are "more successful at preserving them than parks created specifically for this," which the passage offers only as one narrow research example (hay meadows), not the main idea. Option 3 is too descriptive and detail-bound (Holocene, "not designed as nature reserves") and drops the "as likely to increase as reduce" punch. Option 4 is vague and one-sided \(--\) "not always antithetical" softens the claim and misses the "human-free visions are imaginary" half.

Best summary: \( \text{Option 1} \)

Answer 2

Approach (phrase-matching test): Pull out the passage's own load-bearing phrases and check which option reuses them faithfully, without adding or dropping any.

Key phrases: “not designed as nature reserves” yet “catered to hugely diverse animal life”; human presence “about as likely to increase biodiversity as reduce it”; and the closing rejection that humans as antithetical to nature, and human-free environments thriving, are both wrong-headed and imaginary.

Option 2 keeps only the meadows-vs-purpose-built-parks detail and drops the “equally likely to help or harm” balance entirely. Option 3 keeps the Holocene detail but also drops that exact balance phrase, reading more like a list of facts than the thesis. Option 4 softens the strong original claim into a vague “not always antithetical,” losing its force. Option 1 alone keeps every key phrase's substance intact, the rebuttal of the human-free myth and the “equally likely to increase biodiversity than reduce it” balance.

Best summary: Option 1.