In 2013 Oona M. Lönnstedt and colleagues published a study concluding that ocean acidification has a strong effect on the behavior of Pomacentrus amboinensis, a species of fish. However, Lönnstedt and colleagues' study relied on a mean sample size of only about 28 fish. In a 2022 review of various scientists' conclusions about the impacts of ocean acidification on fish behavior. Jeff C. Clements and colleagues caution that relying on such a relatively small sample size can increase the potential for biased analysis. Such analysis, in turn, can contribute to reports of exaggerated effects.
Which choice best states the main topic of the text?
Explanation
Context: In 2013, Lönnstedt and colleagues concluded that ocean acidification strongly affects the behavior of Pomacentrus amboinensis fish. However, their study used a very small mean sample size (~28 fish). In 2022, Clements and colleagues cautioned that small samples increase the potential for biased analysis, which can lead to reports of exaggerated effects.
Answer: A) A possible shortcoming of a study involving Pomacentrus amboinensis
Why? The passage presents Lönnstedt's study finding and then immediately identifies a potential methodological flaw (small sample size) that Clements et al. warn could lead to biased, exaggerated conclusions. The main topic is this potential shortcoming of the 2013 study.
Traps:
- B) "A discovery regarding the evolution of Pomacentrus amboinensis" → the passage is about acidification's effect on fish behavior and study methodology, not about the species' evolution
- C) "A change in fish behavior first reported in 2022" → Clements et al. (2022) issued a methodological caution, not a new finding about fish behavior; Lönnstedt reported the behavior change in 2013
- D) "A newly identified cause of ocean acidification" → the passage is about the effects of acidification on fish behavior, not about what causes acidification