Subscription pricing
The typological theory of species classification, which has few adherents today, distinguishes species solely on the basis of observable physical characteristics, such as plumage color, adult size, or dental structure. ████████ █████ ███ ████ █████████ ████████ █████████ █████ ███ █████████████████ ██ ███ █████ ██ █████ ██████████ ███ ██████ ██████████ ███ █████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██████████ ██████ ██ ███████ ███████████████ ███ ████████ ████████ █████ ███ ███████████ ██████ ████ ███ █████ ███████ ███████ ██ ████████ ████████ ██ ██ █████████████
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the typological theory of species classification is unacceptable. This is based on the fact that (1) it doesn’t count sibling species as separate species, and (2) mainstream biological theory of species classification would classify sibling species as separate species.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that the way mainstream biological theory classifies sibling species is the appropriate way to classify them. But we are presented with no reason to think that the mainstream theory’s approach is better than the typological theory’s approach.
15.
The reasoning in the argument ██ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████
a
the argument does ███ ████████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██████
b
the argument confuses █ █████████ █████████ ███ ███████ ███████████ ████ █ ██████████ █████████ ███ ███████ ███████████
c
the argument, in ███ ███████ ██ ██████ ███ ██████ ██ ███████ ███████████████ ███████████ ███ █████ ██ ██ ████████ ██████
d
the argument takes █ ██████ ████ ████ ██ ████████████ ████ █ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ ████ ████ ██████ ██ ██ █████
e
the argument does ███ ███████ ███ ███████ ███████ ██████ ██████████