Harris: Currently, hybrid animals are not protected by international

Question

Harris: Currently, hybrid animals are not protected by international endangered-species regulations. But new techniques in genetic research suggest that the red wolf, long thought to be an independent species, is a hybrid of the coyote and the gray wolf. Hence, since the red wolf clearly deserves protection, these regulations should be changed to admit the protection of hybrids.

Vogel: Yet hybrids do not need protection. Since a breeding population that arises through hybridization descends from independent species, if any such population were to die out, it could easily be revived by interbreeding members of the species from which the hybrid is descended.

Which one of the flowing is a point at issue between Harris and Vogel?

(A) whether the red wolf descends from the gray wolf and the coyote

(B) whether there are some species that are currently considered endangered that are not in fact in any danger

(C) whether the packs of red wolves that currently exist are in danger of dying out

(D) whether there are some hybrids that ought to be protected by endangered-species regulations

(E) whether new techniques in genetic research should be used to determine which groups of animals constitute species and which constitute hybrids

d999 · Answer

Haris ( main point): the red wolf ( hybrid) clearly deserves protection, these regulations should be changed to admit the protection of hybrids.

Vogel ( main point): hybrid could easily be revived by interbreeding members of the species from which the hybrid is descended. ( therefore, there isn't a need to include hybrids in the protection program)

(D) whether there are some hybrids that ought to be protected by endangered-species regulations- reflects the issue between the speakers

Budhaditya_Saha · Answer

Can anyone explain what is the question asking actually?

Posted from my mobile device

MihirBathia · Answer

The question is asking to identify what is it that they are essentially disagreeing about.

bharathhr · Answer

Question is asking , what is the point that both person would disagree. You can solve this by thinking like - which option if you asked both person will get opposite answers. If you see option D , Haris will say that red wolf is a hybrid species and need protection. But vogel will say there might be no hybrid species that need protection , cus u can breed them back from the parent species if they get extent

Budhaditya_Saha

Can anyone explain what is the question asking actually?

Posted from my mobile device

adipisfugat · Answer

Independent Premise Verification:

Step 1:  Analyze Harris’s core position. Harris states that the red wolf is a hybrid, argues that the red wolf "clearly deserves protection," and concludes that endangered-species regulations should be changed to protect hybrids.

Step 2:  Analyze Vogel’s core position. Vogel responds by arguing that "hybrids do not need protection" because they can always be recreated from their parent species if they die out.

Step 3:  Evaluate the point of disagreement. Harris believes hybrids do deserve and need protection (using the red wolf as the primary example), while Vogel believes hybrids do not need protection under any circumstances. Therefore, they disagree on whether hybrids ought to be protected by these regulations.

Step 4:  Match this to the choices. Option (D) explicitly captures this disagreement over whether certain hybrids should be protected by endangered-species regulations.

The correct option is (D).

Detailed Breakdown of the Argument 
To find a "point at issue" (what two speakers are arguing about), you need to find the statement where one person says "Yes" and the other says "No."

Harris's Stance:  Harris looks at the red wolf (a hybrid), decides it deserves protection, and demands that international regulations be changed so that  hybrids can  be protected. This means Harris answers "Yes" to the question of whether hybrids ought to be protected.

Vogel's Stance:  Vogel explicitly counters with, " Yet hybrids do not need protection. " Vogel believes that because hybrids can theoretically be recreated by re-crossing their parent species, they don't warrant conservation status. This means Vogel answers " No " to whether hybrids ought to be protected.

Why the Other Options Fail

(A) is incorrect  because Vogel never disputes Harris's genetic claim. Vogel says "Yet hybrids do not need protection," implicitly accepting or bypassing the premise that the red wolf is a hybrid, focusing instead on the policy rule about hybrids.

(B) is incorrect  because neither speaker discusses animals currently considered endangered that are actually safe. They are debating  hybrids specifically , not non-hybrid species.

(C) is incorrect  because neither speaker argues about whether the red wolf population is imminently dying out; they argue about the  rule  of whether hybrids deserve protection in the first place.

(E) is incorrect  because both speakers treat the genetic research findings as a given; Vogel focuses entirely on the policy outcome (whether protection is necessary), not the validity of the genetic techniques.

Harris: Currently, hybrid animals are not protected by international

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Harris: Currently, hybrid animals are not protected by international

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards