- Posts: 100
- Joined: May 21, 2019
(A) seems to hinge on whether the extinct fish species are representative of animal species in general. But wouldn't the notion that at least some fish species manifest accelerated extinction be sufficient to reject the opposing view, which contains strong language - "no evidence (whatsoever)," regardless whether the example is representative or not?
Also, the new term "pattern of extinction" in (A) is ambiguous. Though it could mean "rate of extinction," it could also be interpreted as their die-off pattern, or how they became extinct, e.g., illegal poaching, water contamination, pollution, deforestation that deprived the animals of their favorable habitats. Actually, this is the exact reason I eliminated (A). I thought the "pattern of extinction" was out of scope, since the argument only cares about the fact that they are extinct, not how they became extinct.
Instead, I chose (B), as I thought "rate of extinction" is also ambiguous. It could mean the number of species that are extinct over a set period of time, or the speed they become extinct. For example, an extinct species with a previous population of 100 million would be seen as faster (more accelerated) extinction than another extinct species with a previous population of 100. Thanks!