Sometimes, the only way to be certain of your choice is to eliminate definitely wrong options. Consider this rather easy question.
Sometimes the only way to be certain of your choice is to eliminate definitely wrong options. Consider rather this easy question.
The passage provides three benefits that trees have:
1, provide material for humus
2. bring nutrients from far below the surface using their root systems.
3.prevent erosion with their root system.
Benefits 2 and 3 are specific only to trees while benefit 1 is shared with other plants. With this, let's consider each option:
A: From 2, we know that trees bring nutrients to the surface. Since benefit 2 is possible only by trees, we can also infer that other plants do not have the root system to reach the deep soil nutrients. We can also infer that the nutrients are now available for other plants since the nutrients are brought up to the surface by trees.
B: The causal relationship is incorrect. When trees decompose, the nutrients that trees brought to the surface can enrich the soil (the mechanism is not mentioned in the passage)
C combines a few independent pieces of information without logic.
D is not mentioned. D can be factually true, but the correct choice of an information question must be mentioned explicitly or implied implicitly. D is gratuitously true, becoming a trap.