Please let me know if this helps as it is my first comment.

What helped me was simplifying the columnist's argument- similar to the early lessons on grammar.

1) Although much has been learned, we are still mostly ignorant. -Great this does not tell me anything about what we know or don't know.

2) Because much has been learned and we are still ignorant we should therefore try to preserve the maximum number of species if we have an interest in preserving any of them.

3) We should preserve them since allowing species to perish might be harmful/result in fewer of other species that we may or may not care about.

Answers

D) We should not allow a change (allowing species to perish) unless we are assured that will not jeopardize anything important to us (species we may or may not care about/the viability of other species). Yes this fits pretty well and most helps to justify. Why? we don't allow the species that we are indifferent to perish unless we are assured that this will not jeopardize other species which its assumed that we care about - this assumption is small and fits with the "most"

A) what does this tell us about the argument? Our main goal if anything is to preserve as many as possible, not certain ones.

B) We do not know anything about the relevant scientific facts or taking them into account (especially all of them). And we want to take action if we care about preserving any species.

C) We want the maximum number to be preserved- this answer may or may not go against that since maximum does not mean all. But how much have they already diminished? When did the argument say it was about flourishing present and or future human populations? How does that even relate?

E) Will preserving the maximum number of species (the proposed course of action here) result in the best consequences in the immediate future? we just don't know. It also helps to think that we are assuming preserving will have the best consequences in the immediate future- we don't know what impact it will have in the immediate future because the columnist does not tell us.

If you picked E over D it may be because you assumed that preserving the maximum number of species is likely to have the best consequences in the immediate future- but what if it doesn't? what if preserving the maximum number of species had downsides and resulted in not the best consequences in the immediate future- Long term it may be best, short term maybe... we don't really know what will happen if we were to try and preserve the maximum number of species tomorrow or next week.

This is the first question I have got right in the past few. I first tried poe and narrowed to a/b then I added the language in as is suggested in the video. A simply did not seem to match the argument and B revealed the flaw.

I am working on time saving methods and finished in 01:03, I hope this helps. All the facts are perfect in A so I selected it immediately without POE. If I did POE, here is why each does not work for B and E.

((The fact that Penn has an exemplary record in some answers means he is eligible for the award)) The answers try to trick you into assuming otherwise.

We are told an exemplary record is a (must) but exceeding reasonable expectation and saving life is a should receive + if. That is just a weaker reason and harder to bridge gap than must and only.

B is wrong simply because it tries to find another way to solve the answer even though it does not satisfy the MUST claim of their records. B finds a different way to tell you why its right, it is just less right in that way.

E does the same as B and then it adds the issues of the several occasions.

If A did not satisfy the (but not otherwise) claim then maybe the others could be good. But it is the best answer because it satisfies the records rule and it also satisfies the exceeded + life saving. The other trick answers try to find some alternative way. But we already have the best way so why make things more complicated?