Astronomer: Mount Shalko is the

Answer choices

1. A

   No Impact3% picked this

   More than a dozen insect and plant species endemic to Mount Shalko are found nowhere

   This answer potentially raises the stakes of why we care about whether or not the observatory will threaten wildlife, because we learn that there are some precious species in the vicinity. But this answer doesn't give us any reason to think that the observatory will threaten wildlife, and that's what we're looking for.

   3%
2. B

   No Impact2% picked this

   A coalition of 14 different groups, as diverse as taxpayer organizations and hunting associations, opposes the building

   This answer makes it sound like the observatory has a wide range of opponents, but we don't know why each group opposes the observatory. Are any of these groups opposing the observatory because they think it will threaten wildlife? If so, what's their evidence? The fact that people oppose the observatory isn't evidence that it negatively impacts local wildlife.

   2%
3. C

   Correct84% picked this

   Having a complex that covers most of the summit, as well as having the necessary security fences and access road on the mountain, could

   Why this is right

   This answer makes it sound like the observatory would end up disrupting / damaging the local ecology about as much as the current level of recreational use does. In that sense, the observatory might be neither a net gain or net loss for local wildlife. It might be tied with the current status quo. But being tied with the current situation still hurts the conclusion, because in the conclusion the author is saying that the observatory will make the situation better for wildlife: "It should be their salvation". We can object, "Yes, author, the observatory would prevent damage that would otherwise happen from recreational use, but it wouldn't be the salvation of the local wildlife. After all, it would create as much disruption as the recreational use. So it ends up being a similar situation for wildlife."

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

   84%
4. D

   Strengthens6% picked this

   The building of the observatory would not cause the small towns near Mount Shalko eventually to develop into a large city, complete with smog,

   If we removed the word "not", then this would be a fantastic objection, about how the building of the observatory would ultimately lead to bad things. But since this answer is ruling-out that objection, it's strengthening the argument.

   6%
5. E

   No Impact5% picked this

   A survey conducted by a team of park rangers concluded that two other mountains in the same general area have more potential

   This answer makes it seem like we could, or maybe even should, build the observatory elsewhere, but that has no impact on the conclusion. This conclusion isn't a recommendation that we should build this observatory on Mount Shalko. It's a causal claim. The author is claiming that building the observatory will greatly help to local wildlife. We can only dispute this argument by trying to argue that building the observatory would not greatly help local wildlife. Saying "there are better places to build this" doesn't help us judge whether building it here would have the effect the author claims it would have.

   5%