Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to Foss's argument that camera traps "yield an unbiased census"?

Question

Text 1
Camera traps have transformed wildlife surveys. Over one winter, ecologist Nadia Foss's team deployed 200 motion-triggered cameras in the Kettle Range and logged more than 90,000 images of lynx, marten, and moose — far more detections than a decade of track surveys had produced. Because the cameras run continuously and need no observer present, Foss argues, they yield an unbiased census of which species live in a forest and in what numbers.

Text 2
Camera-trap totals reflect where the cameras are, not simply what lives in a forest. Crews naturally mount cameras along game trails and logging roads, where the hardware is easy to service and animals move predictably. Species that use those corridors — coyotes, deer — pile up detections, while animals that avoid open paths barely register. Such counts can be converted into honest density estimates, but only after the placement of each camera is modeled explicitly.

Accepted Answer

A. By granting that cameras detect far more animals than track surveys do but denying that the resulting counts are free of bias, since camera placement favors certain species. Text 2 does not dispute the volume of detections; it disputes their representativeness, attributing distorted counts to where crews put cameras. A captures both the concession and the objection. B invents a claim Text 2 never makes — it says corridor species are overrepresented, not that fewer species are detected overall. C mistakes Text 1's reasoning (no observer present) for Text 2's position; Text 2's concern is placement, not observers. D ignores Text 2's explicit qualification that honest density estimates are possible "after the placement of each camera is modeled."

Answer

B. By arguing that camera traps in fact record fewer species than traditional track surveys record — Text 2 says corridor species like coyotes and deer pile up detections while path-avoiding animals barely register — that's a claim about skewed proportions, not about cameras detecting fewer species than track surveys. Neither text compares total species counts that way.

Answer

C. By agreeing that the absence of a human observer removes the principal source of bias from a wildlife survey — The 'no observer present' reasoning belongs to Foss in Text 1, not to the author of Text 2. Text 2's objection is about where crews mount the cameras, so removing the observer wouldn't address its concern at all.

Answer

D. By insisting that camera-trap data can never be used to estimate the density of a population — Text 2 explicitly allows that counts 'can be converted into honest density estimates' — just not until camera placement is modeled. You turned a condition into a flat impossibility.

Craft and Structure practice question

Answer: A. By granting that cameras detect far more animals than track surveys do but denying that the resulting counts are free of bias, since camera placement favors certain species

Why the other answers are wrong

More Craft and Structure questions