Naturalist: For decades we have known that the tuatara, a New Zealand

I am responding to a pm from getgyan. Does anyone know the source of this question?

Here is my analysis:
Sentence #1 --- tuatara on south island dying
Sentence #2 --- if they're all one species, the same as the north island ones, then saving the south island tuatara is not important
Sentence #3 --- new research: south island tuatara are their own species
Sentence #4 --- since they are unique species, saving the south island tuatara is important

Very interesting --- with the change in species classification, saving the south island tuatara went from unimportant to important. That is key for this argument.

Which one of the following principles most helps to justify the naturalists’ argumentation?
(A) In order to maximize the number of living things on Earth, steps should be taken to preserve all local populations of animals.
First of all, does the phrase "number of living things on Earth" refer to number of species or number of individual living entities? Biologist do try to save species that are going extinct, but I don't think anyone is trying to maximize the total number of individual living things. That's crazy. I believe scientist don't even know the total number of species on earth: they can estimate it, but the value of that number is somewhat unrelated to their main task. Savings species is not a numbers game: biologists regard each species as something valuable in and of itself: no one has the idea that, somewhere out there, we are keeping notches for each species on Earth. More to the point, if we were trying to maximize number of living things, then we would be trying to save the south island tuatara, regardless of their species classification: this in no way explains the huge change in prioritization that appears in the argument. This is not correct.

(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.
First of all, this is about an individual animal, not a species. More importantly, if this were true, then there would have been this obligation to save them in the first sentence, even when we thought the north and south islands tuataras were all the same species. This also doesn't explain at all how the deaths of the south island tuatara went from unimportant to important. This is not correct.

(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.
This is interesting. Local extinction --- there are tuataras everywhere, and only those on the south island are dying --- no obligation = it is not important to save them. But, global extinction --- the south island tuataras are the only example in the world of that particular species ----- obligation = it is important to save them. This very cogently follows and explains the shift in the argument. This is a promising choice.

(D) Human activities that either intentionally or unintentionally threaten the survival of an animal species ought to be curtailed.
This is a distractor. The south island tuataras are dying because of their natural predators. The argument says zilch about human activity having an impact on the south island tuataras. Yes, it is true that human activity often is a culprit in species extinction, so that's a common assumption to make. Nevertheless, it's not mentioned at all in this particular passage, so there's no support for this answer. This is incorrect.

(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.
A wild claim, totally unsupported by the passage. All over the world, there are species that happen to exist "in only one circumscribed geographical region" --- they are not all teetering on the verge of extinction. Every species that is found "in only one circumscribed geographical region" --- we are easily talking about millions of plants, animals, bacteria, protists, etc. etc. We can't make a sweeping generalization about all of them, especially one so extreme as saying they are all "vulnerable to extinction." Tell that to the specialized bacterial species that are found only in the Ganges River and that absolutely thrive there! This answer choice a completely over-the-top claim. This is incorrect.

Thus, we can easily eliminate four answers, and we are left with only one. (C) makes a distinction that precisely mirrors the distinction made in the argument, so it powerfully supports it. (C) is the OA.

Does all this make sense?

Mike
_________________

IMO C
because the argument says Tuatara reptiles were supposed to be approaching extinction on the South Island, but were not endangered on North Island, naturalist felt no need to protect them.But, when he got to know that the ones approaching extinction are a distinct species, the naturalist advised that the south island species should be protected at all cost even if it means killing many of their unendangered natural predators.

Option C states exactly the same stuff and thus justifies naturalists’ argument...

+1 C

C has been rejected by many for being extreme. Please look at the premise carefully, even the premise have used extreme language "But since South Island tuatara were thought to be of the same species as North Island tuatara there was NO NEED to protect them"
_________________

Argument:

- The tuatara has been approaching extinction on the South Island but they were thought to be of the same species as North Island tuatara there was no need to protect them.
- New research indicates that the South Island tuatara are a distinct species, found only in that location.
- To protect the species, human beings are now obliged to prevent their extinction, even if it means killing many of their unendangered natural predators.

What principle governs the naturalist's suggested course of action?

(A) In order to maximize the number of living things on Earth. Steps should be taken to preserve all local populations of animals.
The naturalist is not concerned about "maximizing number of living things" because he is suggesting killing predators (which are living things).

(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.
This is not it. The naturalist is willing to kill other animals so " if doing so would not interfere with the health or well-being of other animals" is not his guiding principle.

(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.
This is correct. Till the species was supposed to survive in North (local extinction in South), there was no problem. But when the naturalist realized that the extinction from South would lead to Global extinction, it imposed an obligation to prevent the extinction.

(D) Human activities that either intentionally or unintentionally threaten the survival of an animal species ought to be curtailed.
This is not mentioned anywhere. Human activity is irrelevant to this argument.

(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.
Not given. It might be true that species found in one region are more vulnerable to extinction but naturalist's actions are not based on the principle that they need to be given "more care and attention" generally. Only because the species is nearing extinction, the naturalist is worried about saving it.

Answer (C)
_________________

Time: 1:09

(A) In order to maximize the number of living things on Earth. Steps should be taken to preserve all local populations of animals. - Then why are we open to the idea of killing the predators of Southern Tuatara, which are not close to extinction. Remember we are talking about number of living things and not number of species.

(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. - We are open to the idea of killing the predators of Southern Tuatara. This is not ture.

(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.

- This is true. The Southerm Tuatara's dwindling numbers didnot create an alarm till the time it was identified as a species that was like the Northern Tuatara, which were plenty in numbers - This indicates that there is no obligation to prevent local extinction.

The time it was discovered to be a distinct species from Northern Tuatara, people realised that a unique species is close to extinction - This indicates a threat of global extinction. Hence the people felt obligated to prevent their extinction

(D) Human activities that either intentionally or unintentionally threaten the survival of an animal species ought to be curtailed. - We dont know for sure if human activities were the reason for driving the Southern Tuatara close to extinction. From the stem it seems more likely that it was natural predation by other animals

(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. - The stem proposes the idea of killing even those unendangered natural predators of the Southern Tuatara. This implies that even unique local natural predators of Southern Tuantara who are not endangered will be killed. Incorrect.

Naturalist: For decades we have known that the tuatara, a New Zealand reptile, have 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. - Implies Local Extinction did not raise any alarm

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.- The threat of global extinction creates an alarm

Which one of the following principles most helps to justify the naturalists’ argumentation?

(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.- Correct, clearly justifies the naturalist line of reasoning

The argument is saying when we South species matches with those of North, there is no need of protecting south ones as we already have the same species in the north.

But then a new study comes and says No, Stop they are distinct. After this study, some obligations to prevent them started.

It means when we thought it is a local impact, we didn't do anything. But when we came to know that it is a global impact, we got alert.

This is what option C is doing.

(A) In order to maximize the number of living things on Earth, steps should be taken to preserve all local populations of animals. : OFS. All local is not relevant. Not matching with what we need.

(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. : But we are interfering with the health of other species as per the argument, Hence, this option is incorrect.

(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. Correct for the reasons mentioned above.

(D) Human activities that either intentionally or unintentionally threaten the survival of an animal species ought to be curtailed. : ok, I will do so. But how does it relate to what we want?.

(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. We are talking about endangered species only. Not all. so, extreme and Out.
_________________

IMO E
Because for C..How do we define local and global extinction based on the information in the argument ? Kindly explain

According to me,in E 'other species' are the ones which are not found only in such geographic regions

E reasoning is flawed - > it says species in one geographical area should be given more care because they are more vulnerable to extinction.

If any species is found only in any one particular area doesn't necessarily mean that it is vulnerable to extinction.

"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."

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 naturalists’ argumentation?

Premises: Earlier Tuatara, NZ = Tautara NI. Hence no protection. But as per new research South Island tuatara are a distinct species, hence human beings are required to save the species even if it means killing many of their unendangered natural predators.

Prethinking: Saving endangered species is more IMP that saving unendangered natural predators/species.

(A) In order to maximize the number of living things on Earth, steps should be taken to preserve all local populations of animals. NOPE

(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. People???? Nope

(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. Yes. It can be said. Bcz, when it was thought Earlier Tuatara, NZ = Tautara NI. Hence no protection. but after new evidence, view point changed suddenly and human beings are required to save the species

(D) Human activities that either intentionally or unintentionally threaten the survival of an animal species ought to be curtailed. Irrelevant

(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. Irrelevant. Argument is about engendered spices and not about Species that are found in only one circumscribed geographical region.

Naturalist: For decades we have known that the tuatara, a New Zealand reptile, have 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 naturalists’ argumentation?

(A) In order to maximize the number of living things on Earth, steps should be taken to preserve all local populations of animals.
To broad.. not specific for the argument.

(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.. does not explain why not help when the species were considered same as the north island,and why help when found unique.

(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..correctly aims at all the aspects of the argument.

(D) Human activities that either intentionally or unintentionally threaten the survival of an animal species ought to be curtailed.
not mentioned that they are under threat because of humans.

(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.the reasoning is wrong because its not true that species are more vulnerable to extinction because it is in circumscribed geo reg.

(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.

attitude changed

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

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________