Q21 - Naturalist: For decades we

[ericha3535]

Could someone explain why C is a better answer than E?
THankyou!!

[maryadkins]

It wasn't an issue that the Tuatara were going to be extinct on the South Island because they would still exist on the North Island. But once we figured out they were actually actually going to be totally extinct across the board, we're obligated to prevent it. (C) says this.

(E) introduces "more care and attention" which isn't in the argument. It's not about more or less attention but having an obligation or not.

(A) maximize the number of living things on earth?

(B) way out of scope. We're not talking about one animal being in danger of dying, but the threat of an entire species going extinct.

(D) is too broad. We were given a situation in which we didn't need to worry about a species going extinct (when it was just a local extinction) and so our principle should reference this.

[WaltGrace1983]

An understanding of the core is always important but it is also important in this particular question to remember some of the key details of what you *think* may not be important, i.e. that little tidbit about how "there was no need to protect the tuatara when we thought that there were more of them!

South Island tuatara are lost than entire species is lost
→
We have an obligation to prevent their extinction

Oh wait...one more point....

"Even if it means killing many of their unendangered natural predators"

I've noticed that on principle questions these little details may be interpreted as slightly more important. These little details that aren't necessarily apart of the core end up being incredibly beneficial in eliminating wrong answers and choosing the right one. Think about it like reading comprehension: the little details aren't always (rarely?) important but, when they are, these little details can be huge to your understanding!

Now that we have the core down, it is also important to reiterate what the task is. Yea "principle question," okay, but what about the type of principle question? This one is asking what principle will justify the conclusion - treat it like a sufficient assumption question.

(A) "Steps should be taken to preserve all local populations of animals." Ummmm....didn't the author just give us the permission to "kill many unendangered natural predators" if need be? Also, "maximizing the number of living things" seems a little bit too broad here. Eliminate.

(B) Ah! It was so close! The part after "if" really ruins it for us. For one thing, we don't know if we can guarantee that doing so would not interfere with other animals. If we cannot guarantee the sufficient condition, then we cannot guarantee the necessary condition. Thus, (B) is wrong!

(D) "Activities that [...] threaten the animal species ought to be curtailed." This is a global statement. However, we were just given the permission to "kill unendangered natural predators" if need be! Eliminate.

(E) "More care and attention." This is the part that really makes it wrong. Not only has it not come up in the argument, but it doesn't bridge the gap between "close to extinction" and the "obligation" we now have! Eliminate.

(C) is great! It bridges the gap as noted above.

[skdygks03]

I think (E) is wrong because the stimulus argues that we are obliged to preserve species not necessarily “found in only one geographical region,” but in danger of extinction. It does not matter whether one species is found in only on geographical region or not. What matters is whether it is in danger of extinction.

Please comment on this

[michellemyxu]

I don't see "more care and attention" in E as a problem because I see a comparison between "South Island tuatara now" and "South Island tuatara then." Now, the tuataras are only found in one circumscribed geographical region; then, they were found in both South and North Islands. According to the stimulus, we are now obliged to prevent their extinction, while we were not obliged to do so then. So why is there no such comparison? I'm confused

[ohthatpatrick]

There are a number of problems with (E).

Highest level would be this:
"Are the S. Island tuatara a species found in only one circumscribed geographical region?"

Yes. According to this principle, then, we should give the S. Island tuatara more care and attention than other species (species who are found in more than one circumscribed geographical region).

Well the author is saying, "Protect the S. Island tuatara while killing many natural predators of the tuatara."

The author is clearly giving S. Island tuatara more care and attention than he is to the natural predators.

Are the natural predators "species who are found in more than one circumscribed geographical region"?

Who knows.

Thus, there's no way to use the rule in (E), apply it to the S. Island tuatara, and get to the idea that it's okay to kill their local predators.

All we know about their local predators is that the predators are not endangered. But they might still be purely local, similarly circumscribed to living only on the S. Island of New Zealand.

In that case, this rule gives us no reason to prioritize the lives of the tuatara over the lives of its local predators.