Conservationist: The population of a certain wildflower

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope: valued / drastic1% picked this

   It is better to take measures to preserve a valued type of organism, even if those measures are drastic, than to accept a

   It's never established that this wildflower is a "valued type of organism", nor is it established that introducing daisies into the wildflower's range would be a "drastic measure". So we're not going to be able to match the language of this rule to our argument. This answer also seems to have weighed tradeoffs in the opposite way. Our argument is thinking, "It's better to accept a less-pure substitute for something than to lose that something altogether."

   1%
2. B

   Out of Scope: vigorous / replace2% picked this

   It is better to preserve a type of organism that is in danger of extinction, even if surviving organisms of that type are not

   The language about "not vigorous / more vigorous" is totally new. We know that as a species the wildflower is endangered, but we have no idea if individual wildflower organisms are frail vs. vigorous. We have no idea if daisies are "more vigorous". And the conversation was never considering this question at all: "Should we preserve the wildflower that's in danger of extinction, or should we allow the more vigorous daisy to replace it"?

   2%
3. C

   Correct94% picked this

   It is better to change a type of organism that would otherwise be lost, even if the changes are radical,

   Why this is right

   This gives us the Weighing Tradeoffs type of answer we anticipated. The author's argument is mainly found in the final sentence, and there is a caveat / disclaimer / competing interest there. "Although the hybrid would differ markedly ... we should still introduce the daisy into the wildflower's range so that they can cross-pollinate". The result of this plan will be that we'll get a crop of plants that are 1/2 daisy, 1/2 wildflower. That is a radical change; it differs markedly from the wildflower species itself. But, if we don't take this action, the wildflower will be extinct. So the author, in recommending this action, is saying, "It's better that we take the pure wildflower and change it, radically, into a 1/2 daisy, 1/2 wildflower hybrid than that we lose the wildflower entirely". The author is saying in her final two ideas, "on the one hand this plan would result in a plant that's markedly different from the wildflower; on the other hand this plan is the only way to prevent total loss of the wildflower". Since she ends up suggesting that we do this plan, she must think "preventing total loss > preventing a plant that is radically changed".

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

   94%
4. D

   Out of Scope: destroy1% picked this

   It is better to destroy one of two competing types of organisms, even if both are irreplaceable, than to allow both

   Nothing in the plan being considered involves the potential for destroying either type of organism. We're just talking about planting some daisies near these wildflowers, so that they can cross-pollinate.

   1%
5. E

   Out of Scope: negative effects1% picked this

   It is better to protect an endangered type of organism, even if doing so has some negative effects on another type of organism,

   This answer would be saying, "It's better that we protect the endangered wildflower than do nothing, even if protecting the wildflower will have some negative effects on daisies". But the paragraph never talked about any negative effects on daisies.

   1%