Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Naturalist: For decades we have known that the tuatara, a [#permalink]
11 May 2005, 14:55
100% (02:12) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 6 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
21. Naturalist: For decades we have known that the tuatara, a New Zealand reptile, has been approaching extinction on the South Island. But since South Island tuatara were thought to be of the same species as North Island tuatara there was no need to protect them. But new research indicates that the South Island tuatara are a distinct species, found only in that location. Because it is now known that if the South Island tuatara are lost an entire species will thereby be lost, human beings are now obliged to prevent their extinction, even if it means killing many of their unendangered natural predators.
Which one of the following principles most helps to justify the naturalistsâ€™ argumentation?
(A) In order to maximize the number of living things on Earth, steps should be taken to preserve all local populations of animals.
(B) When an animal is in danger of dying, there is an obligation to help save its life, if doing so would not interfere with the health or well-being of other animals or people.
(C) The threat of local extinction imposes no obligation to try to prevent that extinction, whereas the threat of global extinction does impose such an obligation.
(D) Human activities that either intentionally or unintentionally threaten the survival of an animal species ought to be curtailed.
(E) Species that are found in only one circumscribed geographical region ought to be given more care and attention than are other species because they are more vulnerable to extinction.
C. Earlier thought of South Island tuatara's extinction as a local extinction, but when realized it was a distinct species than North Island tuatara, thought of it as a global extinction and feel obligated to save it.
(A) Clearly wrong. He states that local animals could be killed to prevent extinction of another species.
(b) Wrong. He does advocate killing other animals to save others.
(c) True. When they thought they were the same species no one cared about the population in the south. Now that they know they are different species they need to be saved.
(d) Wrong. Argument advocates human involvement to save species.
(e) Close but still wrong. This is the TRICK answer. There could be a species that is only found in one geographical location but in no danger of extinction. In this case the author of the argument would probably not advocate killing of other species since there is no danger of extinction.