#21 - Naturalist: For decades we have known that the tuatara

[Dave Killoran]

Strengthen-PR. The correct answer choice is (C).

The stimulus provides background information on the tuatara, a New Zealand reptile. North and South Island tuatara were thought to be the same species and thus there was no need to protect the South Island tuatara, which was approaching extinction. However, new research has found that the South Island tuatara is a distinct species, found only there. On that basis, the naturalist concludes that we must save the tuatara, even at the expense of killing their unendangered natural predators. Thus, in short form, the gist of the naturalist's argument appears as:

• Premise: South tuatara is distinct and going extinct
  
  Conclusion: Save that tuatara, even if you hurt other species

The question stem asks you to identify a principles that strengthens the naturalist's argument.


Answer choice (A): This answer actually hurts the argument, since it indicates we must "maximize the number of living things" yet the naturalist's conclusion indicated that we might need to kill certain predators. Those two ideas conflict, and thus this answer is incorrect.

Answer choice (B): This answer choice also hurts the argument, because it would conflict with the advice to kill unendangered natural predators.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer. This answer perfectly matches the scenario here, since the South Island tuatara is known to be a distinct species that would go extinct if it is lost. Since that qualifies as a global extinction, this answer indicates that there is an obligation to stop said extinction.

Answer choice (D): This answer also hurts the argument, since it states that human activities that that threaten the survival of an animal species (such as a predator) should be curtailed.

Answer choice (E): This is the most challenging incorrect answer. One main reason to eliminate this answer is that it focuses on the idea of "they are more vulnerable to extinction" but vulnerability was not the reason cited by the naturalist for protection, being a "distinct species" approaching extinction was the reason. Overall, this answer doesn't address the approaching extinction issue and leaves it open (whereas it is addressed in (C).

Another point about (E) is that it mentions giving more "care and attention than are other species," but this is too broad since this includes all species, both endangered and unendangered. But what if those other species were all were all threatened? In comparison, the stimulus limits the other species that get less consideration as unendangered natural predators, and points out that we are "obliged" to protect them, not just give more care and attention. Those are small points, but a product of the specificity of this answer.

[na02]

Why is the answer not E?
Is it because "more care and attention" is too less an emphasis than "obliged" as stated in the stimulus?
And does it also have to do with the phrase that said species is more "vulnerable" to extinction?

Many thanks!

[Dave Killoran]

Hi NA,

I posted a complete explanation above. It addresses your question, and yes, you were on the right trail! Good job!

[SammyWu11201]

I don't really understand the point you made about E. South Island tuataras are not extinct yet, but they are approaching extinction, so wouldn't that qualify them to be "vulnerable" to extinction.

I also don't really get the point you were making about "more care and attention." Is the phrasing wrong because the stimulus calls to actively protect them, and "more care and attention" seems too passive?

[Adam Tyson]

Answer E is indeed too passive to be much help here, SammyWu11201. We don't want a rule about what we ought to do, but what we MUST do - an obligation rather than just a recommendation.

It may help here to imagine a second species, a predator of the South Island tuatara, that is also only found on the South Island. Answer E would leave us in an impossible situation, because we would be killing off many of those predators rather than giving them "more care and attention." But the stimulus says we are obliged to do that because of the threat of extinction to the tuatara! What are we to do? This principle, if valid, might be helpful, but it might not, whereas the principle in answer C is exactly what the argument followed - when we thought the species was safe from extinction because it was found in another location, we had no obligation to do anything, but when we learned it was threatened because it was limited to one location we were required to take action.