Conservationist: The population of a certain wildflower is so small that the species is headed for extinction. ████████ ████ ██████████ ███ ███████████████ ████ █ ███████ ███████ ████████████ ██████ █████████ ██████ ██████ ████ █████████████████ █████ ██████ ██ █ ███████████ ██████████ ██ ████████████████ ████████ ███ █████ ██████ █████████ ██ ██████████ ████ ███ ████████████ ██████ █████ ████████ ███ ██████ █████ ██████ ████████ ████ ███ ███████████ █████████████ ██ ███ ████ █████ ██ ██████████ █████ ████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ███ ██████
A specific wildflower is almost extinct, and the only way of saving it is by cross-pollinating it with a daisy, creating wildflower-daisy hybrids. While the hybrid would be very different from the original wildflower, we should still go through with the cross-pollination.
The argument’s premises describe what would happen if this cross-pollination occurs, but the conclusion then takes a further step by saying the cross-pollination should occur. We’re looking for some principle justifying this gap - that explains why having the cross-pollination occur would be better than just allowing the wildflower to go extinct.
Which one of the following ███████████ ██ ██████ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ███ █████████████████ ██████████
It is better ██ ████ ████████ ██ ████████ █ ██████ ████ ██ █████████ ████ ██ █████ ████████ ███ ████████ ████ ██ ██████ █ ████ ████████ ██████████ ███ ███ █████████
It is better ██ ████████ █ ████ ██ ████████ ████ ██ ██ ██████ ██ ███████████ ████ ██ █████████ █████████ ██ ████ ████ ███ ███ █████████ ████ ██ █████ █████████ ████ ████████ ██ ███████ ███
It is better ██ ██████ █ ████ ██ ████████ ████ █████ █████████ ██ █████ ████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ████████ ████ ██ ████ ██ █████████
It is better ██ ███████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ █████ ██ ██████████ ████ ██ ████ ███ ██████████████ ████ ██ █████ ████ ██ ████ ██ ██ █████
It is better ██ ███████ ██ ██████████ ████ ██ █████████ ████ ██ █████ ██ ███ ████ ████████ ███████ ██ ███████ ████ ██ █████████ ████ ██ ██ ███████ ██ ████