An environmental historian argues that public debates about conservation often rely on a romanticized baseline of "pristine nature." The author claims that landscapes commonly treated as untouched were historically shaped by human management, and that insisting on restoration to an imagined pre-human state can marginalize Indigenous stewardship practices. The author supports this by describing archival records of controlled burns and seasonal harvesting that maintained certain ecosystems. The author concludes that conservation policy should treat human presence as potentially ecological, not inherently degradative.
Which change would most strengthen the author's argument?
- Additional archival sources show that the controlled burns were widespread and continued over long periods, and ecological surveys associate their cessation with declines in biodiversity. (correct answer)
- Some conservation organizations adopt slogans emphasizing "wilderness" to attract donations.
- The author notes that some human activities have caused severe environmental damage.
- A few parks already allow limited harvesting under permit systems.
Explanation: This question tests the skill of evaluating the impact of changes on an argument's strength. The impact of a change depends on how central the affected component is to the core reasoning, such as expanding historical evidence. Here, the change affects the archival support for human-shaped landscapes. Choice A most strengthens the argument by providing evidence of widespread practices and ecological benefits, reinforcing that conservation should include human presence. A tempting distractor like choice B might seem relevant but addresses slogans, not baselines. A transferable strategy is to identify which assumptions the conclusion depends on most, like historical baselines. Then, seek changes that bolster them with data.