Question

as we battle the exotic species devastating our native plants and animals, we must eliminate one weapon from our arsenal. several times, the native predators of exotic species have been intentionally introduced, often with seemingly beneficial results. they have indeed attacked and held the original exotic species in check, just as they did in their native domains. but what are we left with? too often, the answer is that the introduced predator sets its sights on other native species. in other words, the effort to solve the original problem has only made it worse.
what role does irony play in the authors argument?
1 it effectively focuses the audiences attention on previous introductions that have had an effect opposite of what was intended.
2 it overstates the potential dangers from past and future introductions in an attempt to influence the audience toward action.
3 it steers the argument away from factual evidence and appeals instead to the emotions of the intended audience.

Explanation:

The text describes introducing native predators of exotic species, which initially seem beneficial (attacking the exotic species) but then the introduced predators target other native species. This is ironic as the action (introducing predators) meant to solve a problem (exotic species harming natives) ends up making the situation worse (new threat to native species). So, irony here highlights the opposite - of - intended effect of past introductions.

Answer:

1. It effectively focuses the audience’s attention on previous introductions that have had an effect opposite of what was intended.