- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8234
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (E)
The author concludes that wildlife management experts should not interfere with the habitats of wild creatures. Her conclusion is based on an implicit cost/benefit analysis, weighing the benefits of environmental protection (protection of endangered species) against its costs (possible harm to nonendangered species). While the difficulties posed to nonendangered species are certainly reasons against altering the environment, they do not prove that wildlife experts should not interfere with the environment. After all, the benefits to endangered species could potentially outweigh the cost to nonendangered species.
This is an error in the Use of Evidence. While the author has offered some evidence against interfering with the natural habitats of creatures in the wild, she has not proven that experts should not interfere with them.
Answer Choice (A): This is never a flaw. Although the “experts” may have extensive knowledge in their field, this does not mean they are above criticism. It is perfectly valid to attack an expert’s argument.
Answer Choice (B): The argument already notes that nonendangered species will suffer harm as a result of interference with the environment. The argument does not need to go any further by showing that nonendangered species can easily become endangered as well.
Answer Choice (C): The argument does not overlook this possibility. On the contrary: the author acknowledges that nonendangered species can suffer hardship as a result of efforts to preserve endangered species.
Answer Choice (D): This answer choice is close, but incorrect. While the author does presume that the survival of nonendangered species is equally important to the survival of endangered species, she does not presume that the survival of each endangered species is equally important to the health of the environment.
Answer Choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. This answer choice addresses a flawed assumption made by the author. Whenever the language in a Flaw in the Reasoning answer choice refers to something that the author “takes for granted,” the answer is referring to something the author assumes. Here, the author assumes that the survival of nonendangered species is just as important as the survival of endangered species. In other words, she fails to consider the possibility that it may be more important to preserve an endangered species than it is to avoid harming a nonendangered species.