Political arguments about biodiversity and the preservation of endangered species generally assume we know what a species is. βββ βββββββββ βββ ββββββββ ββ ββββ βββββββββββ β ββββββ βββββββ βββ ββββ ββββ β βββββββββ βββ βββββββββββββ βββββββββ βββ
βββ ββββ βββββββ ββ βββββββ β βββββββββ βββββββββββββ βββ βββ ββ βββ βββββββββ ββ β βββββββββββββ ββββββββββ ββ βββββ βββββββββ βββββ ββ ββββββ β βββββββββ ββ ββββ β βββββββ βββββ ββ βββββββ βββββββββββββββββββββ ββββββββ βββ ββββ βββββββββ ββββββββββββ βββββββββ βββ βββββββββββββ ββ βββ βββββββ ββββββββ ββ ββββββ βββ
ββββββββ ββββ βββ βββ ββββ ββββββ βββββββββ βββββ βββ βββ ββββ βββ ββββ βββ ββ ββ βββββββββββββ ββ βββ βββββββββ βββ βββββ ββ βββ ββββββββ βββββββββββ βββββ βββ ββββββ βββ ββββββββ ββββ βββ βββ βββββββββ βββββ βββββββββββ ββ βββββββββ ββββββββββ ββ βββββββββ ββ βββ ββββββββ ββββ ββ βββ βββββββ βββββββββ βββ
ββββββββ βββ ββββββ ββ ββββ βββββββββ βββ βββββββ ββββββββ βββββββββββ βββ βββββββββ βββ ββββββββ βββββββ
Which one of the following, ββ βββββ βββββ βββββββ βββ βββββββββ βββββββ βββ βββ ββββββββ βββββββββ ββ
It is becoming ββββββββββββ βββββββββ ββ βββββ βββββββββββββ ββββββββββ ββ βββββββ ββββββββββ ββββββββ
(A) is about how international agreements handle things once we know that a species is endangered; the authorβs claim in the final sentence is about the number of species that need protection. For the purposes of strengthening the last sentence, we care about classification, not protection. (A) is about a completely different step in the species protection process, so (A) doesnβt support the claim in the last sentence.
Increasing the number ββ βββββββ βββββββ ββββββββββββββββ ββ ββββ ββββββ ββ ββββββ ββ βββ βββββ βββββββ ββββ ββ βββ βββββββββ ββββββββ
This comparison between bird and mammal species is not relevant to the authorβs claim in the final sentence of the passage. This doesnβt support the claim that, if we have more species, then more species will need protection.
In disputes over ββββββββββ ββ ββββββββββ ββββββββ ββββββββ ββββββββββββββ βββββ ββββββββ ββββββββββ βββββ
This doesnβt tell us why increasing the number of species will probably increase the number of species that need protection. Saying that economic considerations often outweigh scientific considerations doesnβt provide the support that we need.
Advances in scientific ββββββββββ ββββ βββββββ βββββββββββββ ββββ ββββββββ βββββ βββ βββββββ ββ ββββββββββ ββ βββ ββββββββββββ βββββββ ββββββββ
(D) says that advances in science will favor the efforts of the splitters, which means that we will probably have more species (because we know that the splitters
Proponents of the ββββββββββββ βββββββ βββββββ βββ ββββ ββββββ ββ βββββββ ββ βββββββββββ βββββββ ββββββββββββββ ββ ββββ ββ βββ ββββββββββ βββββββββββ ββββββββ ββ βββββββββββ
The last sentence of the passage claims that, if we increase the number of species, then we are increasing the number of species that need protection. We know that the splitters
(E) supports this assumption. (E) tells us that the splitters are more likely to contest an establish species classification (and split the species) if one of the populations involved is endangered. In other words, the splitters will be disproportionately trying to βsplitβ endangered species, thus increasing the number of endangered species.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnosticWant to know why the right answer is right?
7Sage membership unlocks explanations of every question. Every answer choice. On every official PrepTest. Start with a free account.
By signing up you agree to our
terms of service.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy
and
Terms of Service
apply.