xiuzhe wrote:
Why save endangered species? For the general pubic, endangered species appear to be little more than biological oddities. A very different perception is gained from considering the issue of extinction in a wider context . The important point is that many major social advances have been made on the basis of life forms whose worth would never have been perceived in advance. Consider the impact of rubber-producing plants on contemporary life and industry; approximately two-thirds of the world’s rubber supply comes from rubber-producing plants and is made into objects as rubber washers and rubber boots.
The author’s point is made chiefly by
A. acknowledging the validity of two opposing points of view.
B. appealing to the emotions of the audience rather than to their intellects .
C. suggesting a useful perspective for viewing the question raised at the beginning of the passage.
D. Trying to discredit the view of an opponent without presenting an alternative hypotheses.
Generalizing from similar to dissimilar cases.
I do not have a clue about what the author is trying to say here? Any one can help explain? Thanks
This is my first real post on these boards but its not that hard.
You have to understand what the author is trying to convey in two sentences.
The author begins by stating "Why save endangered species?"
Endangered species is used to describe endangered wildlife in the general sense. And he goes on stating this fact by saying, "For the general pubic, endangered species appear to be little more than biological oddities." Basically he is trying to introduce a new understanding of the term endangered species. The term can be used to not just portray wildlife, but also used to describe other organic species.
Later in the paragraph he says, "The important point is that many major social advances have been made on the basis of life forms whose worth would never have been perceived in advance." He is telling the reader that life forms are not just flesh and blood, but all life forms on earth. And, in context of this paragraph he is stating that not just animals can go extinct, but plants can go extinct as well.
He makes this distinction by a statement of fact which states, "Consider the impact of rubber-producing plants on contemporary life and industry; approximately two-thirds of the world’s rubber supply comes from rubber-producing plants and is made into objects as rubber washers and rubber boots." He is telling the reader that the rubber plant should be placed on an endangered species list because the plant itself is actually on the verge of becoming endangered.
The author wants to tell the audience that the rubber plants are so heavily harvested that they could be on the verge of extinction, and he is implying that he wants the endangered species laws to refer to plants so they can be under the same federal statute as animals.
Which is actually his entire point in writing this statement.
The answer: C, which says, "suggesting a useful perspective for viewing the question raised at the beginning of the passage." applies to this statement because he is basically taking a widely known idea of endangered species, and introducing a new idea that endangered species should be a phrase used for all life, including plants and trees.
Ohh, and excuse my grammar, this was my only all nighter before my test on Friday to tie up some loose ends.
_________________
4/28 GMATPrep 42Q 36V 640
close
71% (01:58) correct
