#2 - Despite increasing international efforts to protect the

[donger]

The answer to this question is B but I don't understand why the fact that the establishment of animal refuges saved species that would have become extinct means international efforts are not wasted. For one, animal establishments do not necessarily have to have been created by international efforts. And two, establishing an animal refuge does not necessarily mean protection of natural habitats (but simply substitute habitats), right?

[Steve Stein]

Hi Donger,

Good questions. First, you're correct that animal refuges are not necessarily created by international efforts--but here is the author's argument:

premise: Animals are becoming extinct at an increasing rate.

conclusion: International efforts to help the animals have been wasted.

With all else equal, the fact that animal refuges have actually saved species from extinction would at least weaken the author's argument that efforts on behalf of the animals are all wasted.

As for your second question, the answer choice specifies that species have been saved from extinction by animal refuges--this implies protection rather than simple relocation/habitat substitution.

One other point: It's always great to be able to look at an answer choice and know for sure that it is correct, but that is not always possible; it is often easier to identify the wrong answer choices as incorrect.

I hope that's helpful--please let me know whether this all makes sense--thanks!

~Steve

[donger]

Steve! Thank you for the response! Things are definitely clearer now.

That last tip you gave also helped but probably in a way you didn't quite intend. I was unsure if I should skip reading all the answer choices if I am certain of an answer or whether I should read all the answer choices anyway. I did the latter and had difficulty finishing the section in time. Now I see that it's preferable to do the former if possible.

Thank you!

[rragepack]

I feel like this question overall is a bad question.

Animal refuge is usually seen as a special man-made shelter instead of a natural habitat or nature reserve. If it said 'nature reserve' instead of animal refuge I would definitely go with B.

Because of this confusion of the meaning of 'animal refuge' , wouldn't A be the better answer just because it can mean that until now, the international efforts could have been research into how to better protect natural habitats and therefore now they are best able to protect natural habitats.

I chose B first but changed to A in blind review due to the difference between natural habitat and animal refuge.

I still don't understand why B would be better! Please help!

[atierney]

Hi rragepack,

I do tend to agree with you about the question; honestly it's one of those, being the second question on the test, the first part of answer choice B catches your eye such that you'd likely be better served not overthinking it and just choosing it based on that, rather than second guessing on the basis of "refuge," which I agree adds an ambiguity that casts doubt on the answer choice and then the questions as a whole.

With respect to the dissection, IF (and I do realize that there is a non-insignificant "if" here), we were able to assume that the "establishment of animal refuges" is a part of "the international efforts to protect the natural habitats of endangered species of animals," then I think it becomes that the result of doing so has indeed NOT been in vain. In other words, species of animals have been saved if B is true and a part of the international effort spoken to in the prompt, such that the prompt's conclusion is necessarily not true, in so far as it claims the efforts have been wasted.

Comparing this answer to answer choice A, perhaps the only other viable option, the improvement aspect, speaking to the gradual process by which the preservation efforts have taken form, itself requires an assumption. And this is that the preservation itself has improved is no guarantee that such efforts of preservation, generally speaking, will be effective in preventing extinction. In other words, here we don't just need efficacy at the preservation level, we need the efficacy to cause the extinction rate to be lowered, a causal link that is not shown in the prompt itself. Indeed, the prompt is basically saying that the efforts have been in vain due to a lack of results, thus implicitly questioning whether the preservation can actually serve as a viable cause to the effect of lowered extinction rates.

B's demonstration that the efforts, regardless of how remotely connected, have at the very least resulted in a measurable number of species not going extinct. Thus, B demonstrates, in a manner that A cannot, regardless of how interpreted, an efficacy necessary to weaken the conclusion. It is, for this reason, the best answer.


Let me know if you have further questions on this.