Which claim does the author make about farmland?
Rewilding proposes returning land to a more natural state, sometimes reintroducing species that have been lost, such as beavers or lynx. Enthusiasts speak as if nature will manage itself if left alone. Critics reply that the landscape we cherish was made by farming, and that leaving it alone would lose open meadows, hedgerows and the birds that depend on them. Both sides overstate. Nature left alone does not return to a fixed original state, because climate and species have changed; yet farmland is not inevitably richer in life than land allowed to run wild. The sensible approach is to be clear what each place is for, and to choose the management, whether more or less intervention, that best serves that purpose and can be reviewed.
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: B. It is not inevitably richer in life than land left to run wild
- Step 1: The passage says farmland is not inevitably richer in life than land allowed to run wild.
- Step 2: The only choice consistent with this is "It is not inevitably richer in life than land left to run wild".
Answer
It is not inevitably richer in life than land left to run wild.
Why not the others: The claim is qualified: farmland is not inevitably richer, so it is not always richer or always poorer, it does support birds and it is affected by climate.
Practise more Nature.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.