It is currently 17 Oct 2017, 10:12

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 584

Kudos [?]: 279 [0], given: 0

Naturalist: For decades we have known that the tuatara, a [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 May 2005, 15:55
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

100% (01:12) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 7 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 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.
(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.

Kudos [?]: 279 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Mar 2005
Posts: 418

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

Location: Phoenix
Re: CR: Extinction [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 May 2005, 15:31
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.
_________________

Who says elephants can't dance?

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 93

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 May 2005, 18:24
(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.

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Posts: 1482

Kudos [?]: 125 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: Extinction [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 May 2005, 18:39
yes, it is E.

the passage is about the tuatara, a New Zealand reptile, found in south and its prevention form the extinction, which is explained by E.

Kudos [?]: 125 [0], given: 0

VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Posts: 1112

Kudos [?]: 51 [0], given: 0

Location: London, UK
Schools: Tuck'08
 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 May 2005, 18:49
My first fast choice was E but after I read more carefully C I had some doubts, and finally I think C is much more specific than E.

I would go for C

Kudos [?]: 51 [0], given: 0

Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Posts: 842

Kudos [?]: 122 [0], given: 0

Location: Hyderabad
 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 May 2005, 19:12
Antmavel wrote:
My first fast choice was E but after I read more carefully C I had some doubts, and finally I think C is much more specific than E.

I would go for C


My mistake again! I agree with C now!

Kudos [?]: 122 [0], given: 0

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Apr 2005
Posts: 81

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Location: Lontano da dove
 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 May 2005, 20:25
C deals directly with extinction and more closely resembles the facts in the passage.

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Mar 2005
Posts: 98

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 May 2005, 23:18
I prefer C.

E doesn't seem to be right because it suggests that if a particular of species is found only in one location, it is vulnerable to extinction. Which may or maynot be true.

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 12 Jul 2003
Posts: 198

Kudos [?]: 88 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 May 2005, 23:44
I think tkirk32 has explained c well. :wink:

Another one for c.

Howver , how does the naturalist advocate killing other animals to save others in b beacuse it clearly says 'if doing so would not interfere with the health or well-being of other animals or people"

please explain

Best.

Kudos [?]: 88 [0], given: 0

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 584

Kudos [?]: 279 [0], given: 0

Answer [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 May 2005, 06:09
The OA is C.

Kudos [?]: 279 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 15 Sep 2009
Posts: 263

Kudos [?]: 76 [0], given: 6

Re: Naturalist: For decades we have known that the tuatara, a [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Jul 2012, 08:32
Tough one. Easy to overlook the right answer, which (ideally) would address both the saving of the endangered species and the sanctioned killing of the unendangered ones.

Cheers,
Der alte Fritz.
_________________

+1 Kudos me - I'm half Irish, half Prussian.

Kudos [?]: 76 [0], given: 6

Re: Naturalist: For decades we have known that the tuatara, a   [#permalink] 10 Jul 2012, 08:32
Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.