Self-study
Zoologist: Support Every domesticated large mammal species now in existence was domesticated thousands of years ago. █████ █████ █████ ██████ ███████████ █████ ███████████ █████ ██ ███████████ ████ ██ ███ ████ █████ ██████ ███████ ████ ██████ █████ ██████████████ ████████ ██████████ ████ ████ █████ ██████ ███████ ██ █████████ █████ ██████ █████ ██ █████████ ██ ███████████ ██ █████ ███ ██ █████ ██████████████
Summary
The zoologist concludes that most large mammal species today are either difficult to domesticate or not worth domesticating. She bases her conclusion on the fact that people have at some point or another tried to domesticate every large mammal species that seems worth domesticating.
Notable Assumptions
This can be a tricky question, as the author makes several subtle assumptions:
(1) If a wild large mammal species does not seem worth domesticating, it is in fact not worth domesticating. We know people tried with the species that seemed worth domesticating, but we don’t know if they were accurate in their assessments.
(2) It has not become significantly easier to domesticate large mammals in modern times. Some species were attempted to be domesticated thousands of years ago, so what if some new advancement today makes this a simpler process?
(3) People have discovered most large mammal species. The conclusion is about most wild species in existence, not just the ones humans know about. If most species are undiscovered, a conclusion about all species in existence is flawed.
18.
The zoologist's argument requires the ██████████ ████
a
in spite of ███ ████████████ ████████████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ███████ ██████ ████ █████ ██ ███████████ ████ ████ █████ ██████ ███████
The conclusion is that most species are either too difficult to domesticate or are not worth it. We only need one of these things to be true, not both. Even if people have only attempted to domesticate a very small portion of species, the rest could simply not be worth it and our conclusion would be unaffected.
b
it is not ████ ██████ █████ ██ ███████████ ████ █████ ██████ ███████ ████ ██ ███ ██ ███ ████
If it’s way easier to domesticate large mammal species than it was 1000 years ago, then it makes no sense to claim that most species are either too hard to domesticate or not worth it. The ones humans failed to domesticate in the past would be easier now, and the conclusion would fall apart.
c
not all of ███ █████ ██████ ███████ ████ ████ ████████████ ██ ███ ████ ███ █████ ██ █████████
The conclusion is about species in existence today, so we don’t care about species that went extinct. We are also only concerned with the amount of undomesticated species that are either too difficult or not worth it, not with the amount of domesticated species present today.
d
the easier it ██ ██ ███████████ █ ████ █████ ██████ ████████ ███ ████ ██████████ ██ ██ ██ ██ ██
(D) is attempting to establish some sort of link between ease of domestication and how worthwhile it is to do so. The presence or absence of this link does not affect the argument, so (D) is not necessary.
e
of all the ████████████ █████ ██████ ███████ ██ █████████ ██████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ██ ████████████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ███████████
If we negate (E)—the first domesticated species weren’t the easiest to domesticate—our argument is unaffected. Perhaps the tenth or twelfth or fiftieth species was the easiest to domesticate, with none of these possibilities affecting the argument.