- Thu Jun 17, 2021 6:32 pm
Here's another way to think about it.
Answer choice (B) gives us a reason that people might want wild birds, but it doesn't address the causal relationship here. That means that even if answer choice (B) is true, then it doesn't impact the fact that people shouldn't feed wild birds. The reasons for that ban, if (B) is our answer choice, still stand.
Answer choice (E) however rules out the reasons given. We shouldn't feed wild birds because it makes birds dependent and less likely to survive on their own. But answer choice (E) tells us they can't survive on their own ("must depend on human...") and so making them dependent on humans is not a reason to avoid feeding them. They don't become dependent on humans; they ARE dependent on humans. They aren't less likely to survive because they won't survive without help.
Here's an example: You shouldn't speed because you could lose control of your car and injure yourself and others. Arguing "but, speeding gets you to your destination faster," doesn't weaken the original causal chain. It's another consideration, but it doesn't mean that the losing control and injuring yourself become irrelevant. You still have those reasons that mean you shouldn't speed per the stimulus. You need something that addresses the reasons given in order to weaken the principle.
Hope that helps.