PT158 S2 Q12 ExplanationSome of the rare pygmy bears

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   No Impact6% picked this

   Some species are more deserving of protection than are

   This answer says some species deserve more protection than others. While the argument does call the bears "valuable," it does not argue that pygmy bears deserve more protection than other species. The argument's reasoning is about the bears' specific situation — extinction risk and the availability of exactly one viable option — not about comparative species ranking. Even if all species deserve equal protection, the argument's conclusion would still follow from the fact that these bears face extinction and the move is the only viable remedy. This principle does not connect the evidence to the conclusion.

   6%
2. B

   Illegal Negation, Bad Conclusion Match17% picked this

   Rare animals should not be moved from one habitat to another unless these habitats are

   This answer says animals should not be moved unless their habitats are similar. This is a restriction on when moves are permissible, not a justification for making a move. The argument already establishes that the habitats are similar, so this condition is satisfied. But satisfying a necessary condition does not prove the action should be taken — it only shows a prerequisite is met. The argument needs a principle that drives the conclusion forward: "you should move them." This answer only eliminates one reason not to. Furthermore, this answer's logical form is a necessary condition for permissibility, whereas the argument needs a sufficient condition for action. The argument says the move "should" happen, not merely that it "may" happen.

   17%
3. C

   Correct54% picked this

   If a species is in danger of extinction, whatever is most likely to prevent the

   Why this is right

   This principle states: if a species is in danger of extinction, whatever is most likely to prevent that extinction should be done. Apply this to the facts: (1) the pygmy bears are in danger of extinction, (2) the move to the neighboring island is the only viable chance — and therefore the option most likely to prevent extinction, (3) therefore, according to this principle, the move should be done. The principle bridges the gap between "this is the only viable option" and "this should be done" by establishing that the most effective prevention of extinction should be pursued. Since the move is the only option, it is by default the best option, satisfying the principle's condition. This directly justifies the argument's conclusion.

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

   54%
4. D

   Relative vs. Absolute1% picked this

   The rarer a species of plant or animal is, the more that should be done

   This answer establishes a proportional principle: the rarer the species, the more protection it deserves. But the argument does not depend on relative rarity as a justification for action. The argument is about an absolute situation: the bears face extinction, and there is one viable option to save them. Whether rarer species deserve proportionally more protection is a separate philosophical question that does not connect the specific evidence (only one viable option) to the specific conclusion (do it). The argument would work the same way even if the bears were moderately rare rather than extremely rare — the key driver is the extinction threat and the sole remedy, not the degree of rarity.

   1%
5. E

   Weaker Impact22% picked this

   If an animal's original habitat is in danger of being lost, it is permissible to try to find a

   This answer says it is "permissible" to find a new habitat when the original is in danger. While this is consistent with the argument, it is too weak to justify the conclusion. The argument says the bears "should" be moved — a normative claim about what ought to happen. Permissibility only establishes that the action is allowed, not that it should be taken. "You may do this" is weaker than "you should do this." The argument needs a principle strong enough to generate a "should" conclusion, not merely a "may" conclusion. Additionally, this answer does not incorporate the extinction element or the "only viable option" aspect, which are central to the argument's reasoning.

   22%