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

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

CR PROBLEM - Q2

Expert replies
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]
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

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
Join the discussion

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.
Join the discussion

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

As explained above.
Join the discussion