Question

consider this claim: the drastic decline of yellowstone national parks elk population was caused by the reintroduction of wolves, which now kill thousands of elk each year. now consider how someone might argue against this. which sentence presents the strongest and most reasonable counter - claim to the above claim? the reduction of the elk population has been caused by many factors, including other predators, like bears, and drought, which has led to malnutrition and fewer births of calves. the presence of wolves in yellowstone has benefited scavenger animals such as ravens, magpies, and coyotes, which can feed on elk carcasses left behind by the wolves. the reintroduction of wolves had nothing to do with the decline in elk numbers; theres no way that a few wolves could kill enough elk to even make a dent in their population.

Explanation:

The first counter - claim acknowledges multiple factors contributing to the elk population decline, which is more reasonable than simply denying the wolves' role or stating an unrelated benefit of wolves. The third counter - claim's assertion that wolves couldn't have a significant impact is less supported compared to the first one considering the complex ecosystem dynamics.

Answer:

The reduction of the elk population has been caused by many factors, including other predators, like bears, and drought, which has led to malnutrition and fewer births of calves.