The answer to which one of the

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct74% picked this

   Were the fish species and subspecies that became extinct unrepresentative of animal species in general with regard to

   Why this is right

   If we say, "Yes, the North American fish that went extinct in the 1900s were unrepresentative of animal species in general with regard to extinction", then we can undermine the generalization the author is making as he goes from evidence to conclusion. His evidence is about North American fish, but his conclusion is about the extinction rate of all animal species. Even if North American fish had an accelerating rate of extinctions in the 1900s, if all other animal species didn't have that accelerating rate, then the author's conclusion is super dubious. It's be like saying, "The price of Pop Tarts has gone up; therefore the price of items in the grocery store overall has gone up." What if Pop Tarts are the exception and all the other items are selling the same or worse than before?

   Skill tested: Evaluate · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   74%
2. B

   Irrelevant Distinction13% picked this

   How numerous were the populations in 1950 of the species and subspecies of North American fishes that have

   It doesn't matter what number we answer this question with. It won't change the fact that these species went extinct. The author's argument is just about the rate of extinctions, and clearly 27 in the last fifty years is a bigger number than 13 in the previous fifty.

   13%
3. C

   Irrelevant Quality4% picked this

   Did any of the species or subspecies of North American fishes that became extinct in the twentieth century originate in

   Whether we say yes or no, it doesn't change the fact that these species went extinct, which is all the author's argument cares about. We know and accept that the rate of extinctions among North American fish species is increasing. What we don't know is whether the rate of extinctions for animal species overall is increasing, and this answer doesn't discuss any other animal species.

   4%
4. D

   Weaker Impact7% picked this

   What proportion of North American fish species and subspecies whose populations were endangered in 1950

   It doesn't matter what percentage we supply as an answer. We might think a high number like "90% of the species that were endangered in 1950 are now thriving" weakens the argument by making it seem like North American fish are actually doing a lot better now than the author is portraying. But ultimately the argument only cares about extinctions, not whether they're thriving vs. endangered. No matter how much better these North American fish species would be doing, it won't change the fact that the rate of extinctions for North American fish species accelerated during the 1900s. It might help us argue that the 2000s are going to be a better century for North American fish species, but this is a weaker objection we get than with (A).

   7%
5. E

   Irrelevant Quality3% picked this

   Were any of the species or subspecies of North American fishes that became extinct in the

   It doesn't matter what traits the now-extinct species had. All the author's argument cares about is that the rate of extinction increased over the 1900s. Whether they were important or beautiful or delicious or any other trait is irrelevant to the claim we're discussing about rate of animal extinctions.

   3%