BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

CR PROBLEM - Q2

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 462
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:08 pm
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:4 members

CR PROBLEM - Q2

by confuse mind » Mon Aug 13, 2012 6:05 pm
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. 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.

[spoiler]
Confused between C and E. OA - C[/spoiler]
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 435
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:27 am
Thanked: 48 times
Followed by:16 members

by alex.gellatly » Mon Aug 13, 2012 7:10 pm
confuse mind wrote: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. 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.
The answer is C for the following reason: Before, when the people thought the North tuatara was the same as the South one, no one wanted to protect it. Now, they know they are different and want to protect it. They will even sacrifice other animals in order to protect the species. Statement C says "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." That means that they are not willing to protect a species when it is will only locally die out (when there are other places with the species, {the NORTH}), but when they might be extincted globally (north and south are different), they will act to protect it.

Statement E is irrelevant to the issue at hand. E states that Species only found in one area should be given more care then other species. The argument is not really dealing with this issue. Sure, the species is only in one region, but the point is that it is going to be extinct. If it lived in a large area or a small area is irrelevant.

Hope this helps.
A useful website I found that has every quant OG video explanation:

https://www.beatthegmat.com/useful-websi ... tml#475231
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 462
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:08 pm
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:4 members

by confuse mind » Wed Aug 15, 2012 5:49 am
alex.gellatly wrote:
confuse mind wrote: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. 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.
The answer is C for the following reason: Before, when the people thought the North tuatara was the same as the South one, no one wanted to protect it. Now, they know they are different and want to protect it. They will even sacrifice other animals in order to protect the species. Statement C says "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." That means that they are not willing to protect a species when it is will only locally die out (when there are other places with the species, {the NORTH}), but when they might be extincted globally (north and south are different), they will act to protect it.

Statement E is irrelevant to the issue at hand. E states that Species only found in one area should be given more care then other species. The argument is not really dealing with this issue. Sure, the species is only in one region, but the point is that it is going to be extinct. If it lived in a large area or a small area is irrelevant.

Hope this helps.
I agree with your reasoning for C but not convinced by the explanation for rejecting E.

1. the argument clearly deals with the species which are found is *only* one area because the special protection is obligates because it exists nowhere else.
2. small or large is not a part of the arguments and thus I adds nothing to the explanation.
3. One important thing which adds value to C is extinction but E managed to cover the same in the last clause.



Further, C is a very extreme statement and this is an assumption question and always I have read in the forum that we should not go for extremes in assumption questions.
Top
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 83
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 12:42 am

by hjafferi » Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:48 am
IMO C

As explained above.
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1