#23 - Columnist: Although much has been learned, we are

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen—PR. The correct answer choice is (D)

In this stimulus, the author argues that we should try to preserve as many species as possible, even
those to which we are indifferent. This is because the intricate interrelationships between species are
not fully understood, and so allowing some species to perish might undermine the viability of other
species.

Note that the question stem is a Strengthen—PR, not a Justify—PR because of the presence of
the word “most” in the question stem, which weakens the force required of the correct answer. In
a Strengthen—PR question, the correct answer will provide a premise that, when applied to the
specific situation in the stimulus, helps support the conclusion. Since a principle is by definition
a broad rule (usually conditional in nature), the presence of the Principle indicator serves to
broaden the scope of the question, which requires a more abstract understanding of the underlying
relationships in the argument.

In this problem, you must select a principle that establishes the need to prevent something relatively
trivial from happening, because if we do not, we might lose something more important. Answer
choice (D) contains the statement that is closest to this prephrase.

Answer choice (A): Although the author is clearly concerned with preserving certain plant and
animal species, this principle does not establish that we need to preserve the maximum number of
species possible. Answer choice (A) may be an assumption for this argument, but certainly does not
help justify the columnist’s conclusion.

Answer choice (B): This is the Opposite answer. According to this principle, no action should be
taken until all scientific facts have been taken into account:

S N

Take Actions All Facts Taken into Account

However, we know from the first sentence in the stimulus that we are still largely ignorant of
some important scientific facts, i.e. that not all facts have yet been taken into account. By the
contrapositive property of the principle in answer choice (B), it would follow that no action should
be taken, which is the exact opposite of the columnist’s conclusion.

Answer choice (C): The flourishing of present and future human populations has no bearing on
whether we need to maximize the number of preserved species. This answer choice falls entirely
outside the scope of the argument and is incorrect.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. Applying the Unless Equation, the phrase
modified by the word “unless” becomes the necessary condition, whereas the remainder is negated
and becomes the sufficient condition:

S N

Allow Change Change will not jeopardize something important

Allowing species towards which we are indifferent to perish is tantamount to allowing something
to change. According to the stimulus, however, this change might undermine the viability of other
species, i.e. it might jeopardize something important to us. By the contrapositive property of the
principle in answer choice (D), the change in question should not be allowed to occur, i.e. we should
strive to preserve as many species as possible—even those to which we are indifferent. This answer
choice would help justify the columnist’s argument, and is therefore correct.

Answer choice (E): Whether the course of action proscribed in the stimulus will ensure the best
consequences in the immediate future is unclear, as the author made no distinction between the
immediate and long-term benefits of species preservation.

[15veries]

Hi,

So I chose C...actually at first I did not like any of them.

I thought the correct answer would be something like:
if some action undermine the viability of other species, and if we are interested in preserving any species, we should take a certain action (=preserve the max number of species).
Of course this would be too easy so they would change the way they say this, but I expected something that will reflect this idea.

I was not sure about D because I was not sure "jeopardize" and "change to occur"...those two ideas are not directly discussed.
Also, in the stimulus it says "should" but in D, it says "should not"
I was not sure about the "might" in the stimlus either because it only reflects possibility and not an exactly conditional statement...(as I found in an instructor's answer to my question here)
so I thought maybe this is doing something with "unless we are certain" part in D?
But then I got lost because I'm not sure what "change" means. Is it "perish"?
I was also not sure about D because I thought it does not touch what discussed in the conclusion "preserve the max number." Maybe this is negation of "not allow a change to occur"?
Moreover, the conclusion includes a conditional statement, but it seems D does not care this part neither "if we are interested in preserving any..." Maybe this part is just a fluff?

I'm really confused with this question. Any suggestion?

Thank you

PS
By the way
Is C wrong because "flourishing of present and future human" is not discussed in the stimulus?

[Adam Tyson]

Hey 15v, seems this one put you in a bit of a tailspin! Let me see if I can help straighten you out a bit on it.

First, you are correct about what's wrong with answer C. Our stimulus has nothing to do with flourishing human populations. That's entirely new info, not related to what we should be looking for here.

I think your prephrase is a really good one, and it's actually a great match for answer D. The question is, why didn't you see it that way? You didn't like the idea of "change", but isn't that exactly what we are talking about? Change means make different, or become different. If we have a general rule that we should not allow any change in a situation without being sure the change won't cause harm, that would help make the argument that we shouldn't allow a species to perish (which would certainly be a type of change) without knowing what negative impact that might have on other species.

What about "jeopardize"? You weren't sure about that, and you said that idea was not directly discussed. But we are talking about a species perishing - I think that's a pretty good example of a species being jeopardized, don't you? We're talking about undermining the viability of other species - that's also a form of jeopardy, wouldn't you agree?

Basically, the rule we want to help improve this argument is "don't allow a change to occur if that change might have unknown bad consequences." That's got answer D all over it! That broad rule helps strengthen the specific application of the rule in the stimulus.

Check again for those concepts of "change" and "jeopardize" and I bet you'll see them embedded in the stimulus this time. If you still don't agree that they are there, come back and let's talk about it some more!

Oh, and about the should vs should not aspect of this one - the stim says you should preserve, the answer says you should not allow change. Again, if the rule is "don't allow change", doesn't that support/strengthen "keep things the same" (which is what "preserve" means)? Again, take another look and I think you'll agree.

Keep at it!

[HecubaElliot]

Was I crazy to assume that the "certain plant and animal species" in A were those "other species" that might be undermined, as referred to by the columnist? I thought that that was as strong a point for A as the "anything that is important to us" weakened D. Clearly I'm wrong!

[Brook Miscoski]

Elliot,

That's not a crazy assumption, but you can eliminate (A) confidently for another reason. Look in the stimulus's second sentence, where it says "if we have an interest in preserving any..." That word "if" is crucial. That's a qualification, not a conclusion. Because answer choice (A) attempts to prove the qualification, you can confidently eliminate it. Choice (D) is closer to the argument precisely because "anything that is important to us" allows for the qualification in the stimulus.