Self-study
Conclusion Wildlife management experts should not interfere with the natural habitats of creatures in the wild, because Support manipulating the environment to make it easier for an endangered species to survive in a habitat invariably makes it harder for nonendangered species to survive in that habitat.
Summarize Argument
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.
Identify and Describe Flaw
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.
16.
The argument is most vulnerable ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██
a
fails to consider ████ ████████ ██████████ ███████ ████████ ████ ████ ███ ██ ██████████ ███ ████████ ██ ██ ██████████ ███████ ██ █ ███████
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.
b
fails to recognize ████ █ █████████████ ███████ ███ ██████ ██████ ██ ██████████ ███████
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.
c
overlooks the possibility ████ ██████ ██ ██████████ ███████ ██ █ ███████ ██ ████████████ ████ ██████████ ███ ███████ █████████ ██ ███████ ██ ████ ███████
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.
d
presumes, without providing ██████████████ ████ ███ ████████ ██ ████ ██████████ ███████ ██ ███████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ███████████
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.
e
takes for granted ████ ██████████ █ █████████ ██████████ ███████ ██ █ ███████ ████ ███ ████ ██████ ████████ ████ ██████████ ███████ ██ ████ ███████ ████ ███ ███ ██████████
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.