Columnist: Although much has been learned

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Conclusion Match13% picked this

   It is strongly in our interest to preserve certain plant and

   This rule doesn't have any language that connects to the idea of "save as many as possible". And it doesn't get at the "we don't know whether a given species is crucial to another we care about" part of the Premise.

   13%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion Match4% picked this

   We should not take any action until all relevant scientific facts have been established and

   This sounds like we should just refrain from trying to save any at this point, whereas the conclusion we're trying to justify sounds more like we should try to save all of them.

   4%
3. C

   Bad Premise Match12% picked this

   We should not allow the number of species to diminish any further than is necessary for the flourishing of

   There's nothing in the argument that connects with this answer choice's idea of "the minimum threshold for present and future populations to flourish".

   12%
4. D

   Correct63% picked this

   We should not allow a change to occur unless we are assured that that change will not jeopardize anything

   Why this is right

   This is a pretty brutal correct answer. If we use the "if not" translation for UNLESS, this would sound like If we can't be sure that a certain change (a species going extinct) would not jeopardize anything important to us (the viability of a species we're not indifferent to), then we shouldn't allow that change to occur (should let that first species go extinct). This principle, when applied on a case-by-case basis, would get us pretty close to the author's conclusion of trying to save as many species as possible. With any given species that is endangered, we'd be largely ignorant (not assured) about whether this species was crucial to a species we cared about. According to the rule in (D), we shouldn't allow this first species to go extinct. By following that rule, we'd be trying to save as many species as possible

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

   63%
5. E

   Bad Premise Match8% picked this

   We should always undertake the course of action that is likely to have the best consequences

   There's no premise language that says "we should try to save as many species as possible, because doing so is likely to have the best immediate consequences". The premise was "we should try to save as many as possible, because we're not sure which ones we need to save in order to protect the species we care about."

   8%