vikasp99 wrote:
X: Since many chemicals useful for agriculture and medicine derive from rare or endangered plant species, it is likely that many plant species that are now extinct could have provide us with substances that would have been a boon to humanity. Therefore, if we want to ensure that chemicals from plants are available for use in the future, we must make more serious efforts to preserve for all time our natural resource.
Y: But living things are not our "resources." Yours is a selfish approach to conservation. We should rather strive to preserve living species because they deserve to survive, not because of the good they can do us.
X’s argument relies on which one of the following assumptions?
(A) Medicine would now be more advanced than it is if there had been a serious conservation policy in the past.
(B) All living things exist to serve humankind.
(C) The use of rare and endangered plant species as a source for chemicals will not itself render those species extinct.
(D) The only way to persuade people to preserve natural resources is to convince them that it is in their interest to do so.
(E) Few, if any, plant species have been saved from extinction through human efforts.
Dear
vikasp99,
I'm happy to respond.
This is a good question. Just a period missing, perhaps in the copying process.
We want X's assumption, so Y's objection is a distractor. The
Negation Test will be helpful.
(A)
Medicine would now be more advanced than it is if there had been a serious conservation policy in the past.
Hmm. We might know a few more cures for this or that, but does adding a few more cures make medicine "more advanced"? What does it mean for medicine to be "more advanced"? There's something unclear about this.
Also, consider the negation test. Suppose preserving those previous plant resulted in just 5 more cures, no more. We certainly could say that just 5 more cures would not make medicine "more advanced." Nevertheless, 5 cures is something, and therefore it suggests that it would be worthwhile to save all the remaining plants, at least until they can be medically tested. Negating this does not destroy the argument, so this is not an assumption.
(B)
All living things exist to serve humankind. No, this is what Y is implying about X's position.
(C)
The use of rare and endangered plant species as a source for chemicals will not itself render those species extinct. Bingo! Think of the Negation Test. If using these species wiped them out, then any benefit would be short-lived, which would not result in much of a "
boon to humanity." Negating this obliterates the argument, so this is an assumption.
(D)
The only way to persuade people to preserve natural resources is to convince them that it is in their interest to do so. Not necessarily: this is more Y's take than what X is saying.
(E)
Few, if any, plant species have been saved from extinction through human efforts.We have no evidence for this.
The best answer by far is (C).
Mike