Quote:
Biologist: Conservation biologists working to prevent species extinction have long acknowledged that popular species such as lions, eagles, and pandas receive disproportionately large amounts of funding and public attention as compared to less-popular species such as invertebrates and amphibians. Indeed, many of these less-popular species are more in danger of extinction than the more popular species. Although many conservation biologists have accepted this pattern of disproportionate funding, I believe it needs to stop. For, despite the substantial and continuing expenditure of resources on the more-popular species, very few of these species have any chance of escaping extinction.
The biologist's reasoning is subject to the criticism that the claim that ____
A____, which is used to justify the main point, undermines the support for the point that ____
B____.
Select for
A and for
B the options such that criticism of the zoologist's reasoning is strongest. Make only two selections, one in each column.
I think the main issue here is recognising that the words 'the support' in the question are used as noun and not as a verb.
Let's mark the portions of the excerpt:
Sentence 1 = Popular species receive disproportionately large funding than less-popular species.
Sentence 2 = Indeed, many of these less-popular species are more in danger of extinction than the more popular species.
Sentence 3 = Many biologists accept this pattern of disproportionate funding, I believe it needs to stop.
Sentence 4 = For, despite the substantial, continuing expenditure on the more popular species, very few species have any chance of escaping extinction.
Let's mark our sentences to make a logical sequence:
Sentence 1 is a point made. Sentence 2 supports sentence 1 by using the word 'indeed'. Sentence 3 is the main conclusion. Sentence 4 supports the main conclusion.
Now, we can very easily point that sentence 4 and sentence 2 contradict each other, to be more precise, sentence 4 undermines sentence 2.
Let's elaborate our answer: The biologist's reasoning is subject to the criticism that the claim that _(A)_ which is used to justify the main point
(i.e. sentence 3), undermines the support
(i.e. sentence 2) for the point that _(B)_.
Notice: the words 'the support' here refer to sentence 2 and don't act like a verb.
So, the answer is saying that: Claim A. which is used to justify sentence 3, undermines sentence 2 which supports point B.
Claim A can only be sentence 4. And sentence 4 undermines sentence 3 evidently and this relationship is already revealed in the answer. Now, what does sentence 2 support? That gives us the answer to point B. As per our earlier deduction, sentence 2 supports sentence 1. So, point B = sentence 1.
Answer:
A = very few of the more-popular species have any chance of escaping extinction
B = popular species receive a disproportionate amount at the money and public attention devoted to preservation at species.
Had the question statement been redesigned as:
The biologist's reasoning is subject to the criticism that the claim that ____A____, which is used to justify the main point, undermines the point that ____B____, then our answer would change for B, where B = sentence 2.