Based on the passage about the author's memories of the Kansas prairie and the impact of farming, which option best states the most accurate summary of the author's position about agriculture on the plains?

Introduction / Context:
This reading comprehension question asks you to identify the author's overall attitude toward farming on the Kansas plains. The passage balances factual description with personal emotion, but the dominant tone is one of regret about what agriculture has done to the original prairie landscape.

Given Data / Assumptions:
• The author mentions that western Kansas has been torn up by agriculture.
• About ninety percent of the original sod prairie is said to be gone.
• The author expresses a pang of regret when thinking of the family history on the land.
• The author still finds the land romantically impressive and feels pride as a plains daughter.

Concept / Approach:
To answer main idea questions, you must combine all important points rather than focus on a minor detail. Here, the major theme is loss of original prairie due to farming. Although the author loves the land, she is clearly unhappy about the environmental changes brought by agriculture.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Note phrases like torn up by agriculture and ninety percent of the original sod prairie is gone. Step 2: Observe the author's emotional response, such as pang of regret. Step 3: Recognise that the author contrasts the romantic quality of the land with the damage caused by farming. Step 4: Match this overall feeling with the option that emphasises environmental loss rather than benefit. Step 5: Conclude that farming has eroded the natural beauty of the plains is the most accurate summary.

Verification / Alternative check:
Ask whether each option is supported by several lines of the passage. Only the statement that farming has eroded the natural beauty matches the description of the land being torn up and the disappearance of the sod prairie, along with the author's regret.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
The presence of people has enriched the plains habitat: The passage never suggests enrichment; instead it stresses loss.
Farming has improved the soil of the plains: There is no claim that the soil improved; the focus is on suitability for farming and subsequent damage to the prairie.
Farming has chemically polluted the plains: Chemical pollution is never mentioned, so this goes beyond the passage.

Common Pitfalls:
A common error is to choose an option that sounds positive because farming brought economic benefit. However, the question asks for the author's position, which is centred on environmental and emotional loss, not on economic development.

Final Answer:
The correct answer is Farming has eroded the natural beauty of the plains. This directly reflects the author's regret that agriculture has destroyed most of the original sod prairie and changed the landscape forever.