#3 - Land developer: By attempting to preserve endangered

[andriana.caban]

Hi!

I chose (D) and I understand why that is the correct answer. However, I would love to discuss (C). I hesitated on this answer choice because it does seem like the Land Developer needs more evidence to support his claim.

What would the Environmentalists argument look like if they had responded in a way that reflects (C). Hopefully, by understanding this I can apply this knowledge to other questions. Method of Reasoning and Flaw questions are difficult for me.


Thanks!

[Robert Carroll]

Andriana,

It's worth speculating what the environmentalist would have thought if the land developer had provided more evidence. Simply put, the environmentalist would still have rejected the developer's argument, so lack of evidence is not the problem here.

To make answer choice (C) right instead, I think the environmentalist could have said something like the following:

"Although extinctions are the eventual normal end for all species, it's only proper to call expenditures attempting to delay that fate 'wasted' if the costs outweigh the benefits. It may be true that preserving, even for a short time, certain species will be beneficial while they survive and justify the expenditure. Thus, before you call such spending wasteful, you should consider all the effects the spending will have."

Robert Carroll