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 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. 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.

Explanation:

A strong counterclaim should provide alternative, plausible causes for the elk decline, weakening the singular focus on wolves. The third option identifies multiple factors (other predators, drought) leading to malnutrition and reduced births, which directly challenges the original claim. The first option is irrelevant to population decline causes; the second is overly absolute and dismissive.

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.