PT137.S3.Q16 > Question

SECTION 1 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19

PASSAGE 4

Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 2 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

The author argues that experts should not change natural habitats to help endangered species because doing so always comes at the expense of nonendangered ones.

The argument fails to consider the possibility that helping endangered species is more important than helping non-endangered ones. Maybe we care more about protecting endangered species than non-endangered ones? If so, then the mere fact that our interference can harm non-endangered species does not prove that we should not interfere to protect the endangered ones. In other words, the benefit of interference might outweigh the costs.

This is irrelevant because the argument doesn’t question experts’ ability to help endangered species. The argument is concerned with the negative effect wildlife interference would have on other species.

This possibility does not pose a problem for the argument. The author recognizes that non-endangered species can be harmed since the author advocates for prioritizing their protection.

This is irrelevant since the author doesn’t advocate for saving an endangered species, but rather, argues that endangered species should not be saved if it means interfering with their habitat. The possibility (C) describes is consistent with the argument, since the author doesn't necessarily care about saving endangered species.

The author doesn’t equate anything to the health of the environment. He only presumes that endangered species are not higher-priority than nonendangered ones.

This describes how the author fails to consider that saving a species in danger of extinction may be more important than helping species that aren’t endangered. The author assumes that protecting endangered species is not more important than protecting non-endangered species.

PrepTest 137 - Section 3 - Question 16

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action