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 ██ ██ ██████████ ██ █████ ███ █████████████████ █████████ ████████
The wildflower currently ██████████ ████ ██ ███████ ██████
Not necessary. The argument never depends on seeds being the wildflower's only way of reproducing. The mention of "viable seeds" is about what the cross-pollination produces, not a claim that the wildflower can't reproduce any other way. Whether it also spreads by some other method changes nothing about the case for hybridization, which the argument already treats as the only means of preventing total loss.
The domesticated daisy ███ ████ ████ ████ ██████ ████ ████ ████ ██ ███ ████████████ ██████
Not necessary. Where the domesticated daisy originally came from has no bearing on the reasoning. The argument needs the daisy to cross-pollinate with the wildflower and produce a lasting hybrid population, and it makes no difference whether the daisy was once bred from plants native to the wildflower's range.
Increasing the population ██ ███ ██████████ ████ ████ ██████ ███ ██████
Not necessary. The conclusion is about preventing the wildflower's total loss in its range, not about expanding that range. The argument would be satisfied if the hybrids simply persisted where the wildflower already grows. Whether the population also spreads to new territory is beside the point, so the argument doesn't rely on it.
Wildflower-daisy hybrids will ██ ████ ██ ██████████
Necessary, because the whole plan is to prevent the total loss of the wildflower in its range, and that only works if the hybrids stick around. If the hybrids can't reproduce, then introducing the daisy buys a single generation of hybrids that then dies out, and the wildflower's presence in its range is lost anyway. So hybridization would fail to do the one thing the conclusion credits it with, preventing total loss.
The domesticated daisy ████ ███████████████ ████ ███ █████████ ██████
The argument only needs the daisy to cross-pollinate with this wildflower, which the stimulus already tells us it does. It doesn't matter whether the daisy would also cross-pollinate with every other daisylike plant.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic