IMO C

When South reptile believed to be same as those of North it was OK for Naturalist(Local). But when known that south are completly on the verge of extinction kill other un-endangered predators.(Global)

g000fy 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.

Source - Aristotle CR / LSAT

only B

diebeatsthegmat wrote:

g000fy 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.

Source - Aristotle CR / LSAT

only B

i meant C

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.

I feel it is C. I have made bold the points that I feel are critical in analyzing this question and keeping that in view I could boil down to C and E. I found C to me more powerful of the two because in E, it says ' because they are more vulnerable to extinction. ' but there is no mention of this reasoning in the premise.

So IMO it is C

You all are right