Wildlife management experts

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope8% picked this

   fails to consider that wildlife management experts probably know best how to facilitate the survival of an endangered

   The author isn't debating "who knows best". He's just arguing that we shouldn't take an action because of its negative repercussion. The flaw there is that maybe the negative repercussion is something we can live with, and the positive effects outweigh it.

   8%
2. B

   Opposite4% picked this

   fails to recognize that a nonendangered species can easily become an

   This actually strengthens the author's case. We wanted an answer that said, "fails to recognize that a nonendangered species might be so comfortably thriving that making life harder is not going to pose a threat to that species". This amplifies the danger of the negative repercussion, so it works in favor of the author.

   4%
3. C

   Out of Scope: overall diversity11% picked this

   overlooks the possibility that saving an endangered species in a habitat is incompatible with preserving the overall diversity

   The concept of overall biodiversity is out of scope. We're just debating whether we should interfere for the sake of troubled species, even if it's likely to make life worse for stronger species. Incompatible = contradictory. This is a weird notion that "saving a species contradicts the goal of preserving overall diversity". Every time a species is lost to extinction, the overall diversity of species in that habitat would go down. So this answer is accusing the author of failing to consider an idea that sounds pretty weird in the first place.

   11%
4. D

   Too Strong: equally3% picked this

   presumes, without providing justification, that the survival of each endangered species is equally important to the

   It's the classic "assumes + strong language" trap answer in Flaw. The author doesn't have to assume something as strong as "each species is equally important to the health of the environment". Negating that means, "at least one species is slightly more or less important to the health of the environment than the others". That doesn't sound like a big objection to this logic. He is definitely assuming that "there are not some species who are so important that they are worth saving even if it makes life harder for the other species". But that's not as extreme as "all species are equally important". He doesn't need to assume they're all the same. He just needs to assume there aren't at least some really important species that would be worth saving, despite the negative impact on other species.

   3%
5. E

   Correct74% picked this

   takes for granted that preserving a currently endangered species in a habitat does not have higher priority than preserving species in that

   Why this is right

   The author does make this assumption. If we negate this, it would sound like "preserving an endangered species does have a higher priority than preserving the non-endangered species". That would be a big objection to the argument. The author is saying, "don't do this interfering in habitat thing -- even though it's intended for something good, it would also result in something bad". Negating this assumption would present the objection that doing the good thing has a higher priority than avoiding the bad thing.

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

   74%