by timmydoeslsat Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:02 pm
We have a sufficient principle question stem.
And the question stem is so appropriate, is it not? We are told about this species of a flower that is heading for extinction. We are then told that this species could cross pollinate with a different species and create hybrids.
The author concludes that this should be done, as we would not have a total loss of the species at that point, we would at least have this hybrid seed that contains some elements of this species of flower in question.
The conclusion is not that unreasonable, but it is still an opinion. A should statement is not an opinion of fact. A should statement cannot be logically proven without a principle. We could just as easily conclude that we should not cross-pollinate because perhaps this hybrid of a flower will attract different animals that will destroy other flowers, or that the hybrid looks terrible.
This author is assuming that the outcome of having some sort of carry-over of the species is more desireable than letting the species go away entirely.
Answer choices:
A) Not applying in our situation. We are not preserving something to ward off a substitute.
B) Vigorous?
C) Love it. Change it than to lose it entirely.
D) Better to destroy one of two competitors than let one be lost entirely? Not our situation at all.
E) Better to protect one even if this act of protecting harms another one? Not our situation either.