Unsupported. The stimulus gives us evidence about hot spots and the threats to species in hot spots. This conclusion isn’t focused on hot spots. Species threatened because of habitat loss includes more than just species threatened in a hot spot. So this conclusion is too broad.

Strongly supported. The evidence concerned endemic species in hot spots, and a significant proportion of extinctions involve endemic species. So there’s strong reason to focus on protecting hot spots, which are defined as the places with the most endemic species.

Unsupported. The stimulus may support that idea that endemic species are more in need of protection than non-endemic species. But we don’t have enough to draw conclusions about individual endemic species compared to other endemic species. Some may be more important than others.

Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t support giving up. It supports directing efforts to hot spots. We don’t have any basis to say these effort are likely to fail or that organizations should just accept species loss. Maybe there efforts can succeed and save most endemic species.

Unsupported. The stimulus supports a conclusion about where organizations should focus their efforts concerning species protection. Expanding the definition of hot spot wouldn’t help protect more species, because we don’t know if anyone is trying to protect hot spots yet.