The assault on the purity of the environment is the price that we pay for many…
2025
The assault on the purity of the environment is the price that we pay for many of the benefits of modern technology. For the advantage of automotive transportation we pay a price in smog-induced diseases; for the powerful effects of new insecticides, we pay a price in dwindling wildlife and disturbances in the relation of living things and their surroundings; for nuclear power, we risk the biological hazards of radiation. By increasing agricultural production with fertilizers, we worsen water pollution.
The highly developed nations of the world are not only the immediate beneficiaries of the good that technology can do, but are also the first victims of environmental diseases that technology breeds. In the past, the environmental effects which accompanied technological progress were restricted to a small and relatively short time.
The new hazards are neither local nor brief. Modern air pollution covers vast areas of continents: Radioactive fallout from the nuclear explosion is worldwide. Radioactive pollutants now on the earth surface will be found there for generations, and in case of Carbon-14, for thousands of years.
What is the effect of using too much of insecticides?
- A.
It killed many insects
- B.
Reduced the number of insects on plantations and farms
- C.
Created an imbalance in the relationship between nature and living beings.
- D.
None
Attempted by 1 students.
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: C
Concept: In a factual reading-comprehension question, the correct option must restate what the passage explicitly says about the asked detail - not an idea that merely sounds plausible from outside knowledge, and not a claim narrower or broader than what the text supports.
Application: The passage states that for the benefit of insecticides, "we pay a price in dwindling wildlife and disturbances in the relation of living things and their surroundings." The question asks for the effect of using too much insecticide, so the correct option must match this stated ecological cost - a shift in how living things relate to their surroundings, i.e. an imbalance between nature and living beings.
Checking each option against the passage:
"It killed many insects" describes the intended purpose of an insecticide, not the ecological price the passage names.
"Reduced the number of insects on plantations and farms" narrows the effect to farmland pest control, which the passage never states; its claim concerns wildlife and ecological relationships, not crop-insect counts.
"None" is incorrect because the passage does name a specific ecological consequence, so an effect is present in the text.
Cross-check: Re-reading the passage's own wording - "dwindling wildlife and disturbances in the relation of living things and their surroundings" - confirms that the option describing an imbalance between nature and living beings is the one directly grounded in the text, independent of any outside assumption about how insecticides are typically used.
Hence, the option stating that insecticide overuse created an imbalance in the relationship between nature and living beings is the answer, drawn directly from the passage's own description of this ecological cost.