Despite increasing international efforts to protect the natural habita

Question

Despite increasing international efforts to protect the natural habitats of endangered species of animals, the rate at which these species are becoming extinct continues to rise. It is clear that these efforts are wasted.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?

(A) Scientists are better able to preserve the habitats of endangered species now than ever before.

(B) Species that would have become extinct have been saved due to the establishment of animal refuges.

(C) Scientists estimate that at least 2000 species become extinct every year.

(D) Many countries do not recognize the increased economic benefit of tourism associated with preserved natural habitats.

(E) Programs have been proposed that will transfer endangered species out of habitats that are in danger of being destroyed.

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

This is an extremely common pattern of flawed reasoning. Imagine you’re on a special diet, but you’re still gaining weight. That doesn’t mean the special diet has had no effect. Maybe you’d be gaining  even more weight  if you weren’t on the diet. Or imagine you’re trying to save money by making coffee at home instead of buying your $5 latte at Starbucks, but you find that you’re still going deeper into debt. That doesn’t mean your penny-pinching is “wasted,” because you’d be in  even more debt  if you weren’t saving.

Here, the animals continue to go extinct—and at an increasing rate—but that doesn’t mean the habitat protection efforts are “wasted.” Maybe all the animals would be totally extinct by now if it weren’t for the habitat protection efforts. Maybe the habitat protection is the only thing that’s kept a single animal alive!

We’re asked to weaken the argument. The correct answer ought to point out the flaw we have already identified.

A) Nah, this isn’t what we’re looking for. And even if this is true, it doesn’t mean the habitat preservation is actually working to save the animals.

B) Yep. This is exactly what we were looking for. This one points out the fact that even though some species continue going extinct, the programs in place might be preserving other species that would have been lost if not for the programs. Great answer.

C) This can’t possibly strengthen or weaken the argument. We already know that species are going extinct. The exact number just doesn’t matter.

D) What? Tourism is absolutely irrelevant. The only thing that matters to the logic of the argumen t is whether the habitat protection efforts are saving animals or not.

E) This is nice, but irrelevant. We can’t care about other ways to save the animals. The only relevant issue is whether the existing programs are working.

Our answer is B, because if B is true then the programs  have  had some effect, and are therefore not “wasted.”

asishron29181 · Answer

Premise: Despite increasing international efforts to protect the natural habitats of endangered species of animals, the rate at which these species are becoming extinct continues to rise.

Conclusion: It is clear that these efforts are wasted.

We need to weaken the conclusion.

(A) Scientists are better able to preserve the habitats of endangered species now than ever before. - Preserving the habitat doesn't ensure extinction stops.

(B) Species that would have become extinct have been saved due to the establishment of animal refuges.  - Correct. This option provides us with a reason on how several species were saved due to establishment of animal refuges.

(C) Scientists estimate that at least 2000 species become extinct every year. - Irrelevant. This doesn't help us in any sense.

(D) Many countries do not recognize the increased economic benefit of tourism associated with preserved natural habitats. - Incorrect. we are not concerned about monetary benefits.

(E) Programs have been proposed that will transfer endangered species out of habitats that are in danger of being destroyed. - Incorrect. Doesn't help us in any sense.

IMO B

100mitra · Answer

Correct option B Premise : Animals are becoming extinct at an increasing rate. Conclusion : International efforts to help the animals have been wasted. Refuges meaning: place or situation providing safety or shelter Stem : Weaken the conclusion. Option A - irrelevant, why scientists support the survival and reproduction of a particular species? No such facts infer in the passage. Option C - Scientist

2000, Why?

Option D - Increase economic benefits to tourism, irrelevant Option E - Programs has been proposed, not related to conclusion Option B : Species have been saved due to the establishment of animal refuges. weakens the argument.

TAC470 · Answer

Conclusion : efforts are wasted.
Falsification : Efforts are not wasted.
Pre-think : Though at which these species are becoming extinct continues to rise yet it can't be said that the efforts are wasted. What if many species have been saved which otherwise would have been become extinct.
B Matches with this line of thought and hence the is the answer.

B it is.

Fdambro294 · Answer

I’m going to go out on a limb and say D (I could be horribly wrong)

The premises are discussing international efforts to protect the natural habitats of endangered species.

Despite this action, the rate at which these species are becoming extinct continues to rise.

The author draws his Conclusion: “it is clear that THESE efforts are wasted.”

Which efforts is the author talking about?

The efforts to protect the natural habitats.

Furthermore, the general statement “these efforts are wasted” indicates that the author feels that there is no benefit accruing from protecting the natural habitats.

-A-

The fact that scientists are better able to protect the habitats and still the extinction rates are rising might actually support the argument that the efforts are wasted.

Or, one could say whether or not the scientists are better now at protecting habitats has no bearing on whether the efforts are wasted. The facts still support the conclusion. The international community is protecting these habitats, yet the extinction rates of animals keep rising.

There still does not appear to be any benefit from protecting the natural habitats that could make us say the conclusion might be wrong.

-B-

The establishment of a refuge is another action that is separate from the protection of the animals’ natural habitats.

Even if we were able to save some species from extinction by setting up animal refuges, this would not take away from the fact that attempting to protect the natural habitats has not lead (seemingly) to any benefit.

In other words, “setting up animal refuges” is a separate act from “protecting the natural habitats.”

Even if we were able to save some animals by doing this alternative act, it doesn’t weaken the claim that the “efforts” expended on protecting animals’ natural habitat have been wasted. Animal extinction rates continue to rise and we don’t have any explicit evidence of a “benefit” resulting from protecting the habitats.

-C-

The fact that 2,000 animals become extinct each year does nothing to harm or hurt the argument. The fact just adds further detail to a premise we already knew: that the extinction rates keep increasing despite the efforts to protect the natural habitats.

-D-

If many countries are not recognizing the increased economic benefit ASSOCIATED with preserved natural habitats, then to make the conclusion that “these efforts have been wasted” solely on the rising extinction rates misses out on an important “benefit.”

Despite the rising extinction rate of endangered animals, if the efforts to protect and preserve the natural habitats have led to increased tourism that countries are ignoring, then it’s hard to say that these protection efforts have been wasted.

Yes, we may keep losing animals to extinction. However, there is the economic tourism benefit that results from protecting these habitats.

D most weakens the argument that the protection efforts are wasted.

-E-

Again, programs focused on transferring animals out of the habitats do nothing to take away from the fact that money spent on PROTECTING these habitats may have been wasted.

D....

Let’s see how bad I missed the mark.

Posted from my mobile device

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Despite increasing international efforts to protect the natural habita

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

Despite increasing international efforts to protect the natural habita

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