Skip to main contentSkip to solution

"Everybody pretty much agrees that the relationship between elephants and people has dramatically changed," says psychologist Gay Bradshaw. "Where for centuries humans and elephants lived in relatively peaceful coexistence, there is now hostility and violence. Now, I use the term 'violence' because of the intentionality associated with it, both in the aggression of humans and, at times, the recently observed behavior of elephants."

Typically, elephant researchers have cited, as a cause of aggression, the high levels of testosterone in newly matured male elephants or the competition for land and resources between elephants and humans. But Bradshaw and several colleagues argue that today's elephant populations are suffering from a form of chronic stress, a kind of species-wide trauma. Decades of poaching and culling and habitat loss, they claim, have so disrupted the intricate web of familial and societal relations by which young elephants have traditionally been raised in the wild, and by which established elephant herds are governed, that what we are now witnessing is nothing less than a precipitous collapse of elephant culture.

Elephants, when left to their own devices, are profoundly social creatures. Young elephants are raised within an extended, multitiered network of doting female caregivers that includes the birth mother, grandmothers, aunts and friends. These relations are maintained over a life span as long as 7070 years. Studies of established herds have shown that young elephants stay within 1515 feet of their mothers for nearly all of their first eight years of life, after which young females are socialized into the matriarchal network, while young males go off for a time into an all-male social group before coming back into the fold as mature adults.

This fabric of elephant society, Bradshaw and her colleagues demonstrate, ha[s] effectively been frayed by years of habitat loss and poaching, along with systematic culling by government agencies to control elephant numbers and translocations of herds to different habitats. As a result of such social upheaval, calves are now being born to and raised by ever younger and inexperienced mothers. Young orphaned elephants, meanwhile, that have witnessed the death of a parent at the hands of poachers are coming of age in the absence of the support system that defines traditional elephant life. "The loss of elephant elders," says Bradshaw "and the traumatic experience of witnessing the massacres of their family, impairs normal brain and behavior development in young elephants."

What Bradshaw and her colleagues describe would seem to be an extreme form of anthropocentric conjecture if the evidence that they've compiled from various elephant researchers weren't so compelling. The elephants of decimated herds, especially orphans who've watched the death of their parents and elders from poaching and culling, exhibit behavior typically associated with post-traumatic stress disorder and other trauma-related disorders in humans: abnormal startle response, unpredictable asocial behavior, inattentive mothering and hyper aggression.

According to Bradshaw, "Elephants are suffering and behaving in the same ways that we recognize in ourselves as a result of violence. Except perhaps for a few specific features, brain organization and early development of elephants and humans are extremely similar."

In the first paragraph, Bradshaw uses the term "violence" to describe the recent change in the human-elephant relationship because, according to him:

Solution

āœ… Correct Option: 3

From passage: "Now, I use the term 'violence' because of the intentionality associated with it, both in the aggression of humans and, at times, the recently observed behavior of elephants."

Bradshaw explains his word choice directly -> he uses "violence" because of the intentionality (purposefulness) he sees in both human and elephant aggression -> not just random behavior, but deliberate actions


Students often get confused between options that mention true facts vs. the specific reason Bradshaw gives. The key is finding his direct explanation, not just related information.

šŸ”“ Option 1 -> scope-error -> talks about killing specifically, but Bradshaw doesn't mention killing as his reason - he focuses on intentionality/purpose

🟠 Option 2 -> context-shift -> mentions systematic destruction (which happens later in passage), but this isn't what Bradshaw specifically says about why he chose the word "violence"

🟢 Option 3 -> correct -> "purposefulness" directly matches "intentionality" from the quote - captures exactly what Bradshaw says

🟠 Option 4 -> partial-truth -> while interactions have changed (true), this describes the general situation, not Bradshaw's specific reason for using "violence"

The trap here is picking options that sound relevant to the topic instead of finding Bradshaw's exact reasoning. Always look for the direct explanation when questions ask "according to him" or "because."

Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Left arrow: Previous question
  • Right arrow: Next question
  • S key: Jump to solution
  • Q key: Jump to question