A builder is proposing a new housing development in an area of western Massachusetts. Construction of the housing development wi
ll destroy the wetland habitat in the area. Which of the following would be the MOST likely consequence of the wetland’s destruction? A) The wetland plant species would disperse to adjacent meadow habitats. B) The populations of wetland animals would be unable to survive in that area. C) The wetland animal species would survive by interbreeding with non-wetland species. D) The populations of wetland plants would evolve to disperse seeds by wind rather than water.
B) The populations of wetland animals would be unable to survive in that area.
The correct answer is B. If an animal's habitat is destroyed it will no longer be able to survive. Especially if the habit is drastically different than the habitats around it. The small fish living in the wetland cannot all of a sudden decide to grow lungs and breathe air. The frogs that rely on on year-round water for to grow from eggs to tadpoles to frogs that require a wet habitat will not be able to survive. For this reason option A is also wrong. Option C is wrong because different species can't just decide to interbreed with non-wetland species. This is saying that a fish can interbreed with a bird...um, no. Option D is also not correct. The wetland species would die before it even had the chance to evolve.
Political speeches are the same as persuasive essays because /most/ political speeches are used to persuade others into say, voting for someone, ending a war, funding, etc.
