#7 - Principle: People should not feed wild animals because

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[ofc95]

I don't understand the answers here. I was looking for something that shows how the birds are more capable of surviving on their own than other wild animals, but none of the answers really aligned with that.

[Jeremy Press]

Hi ofc,

The question asks us to look for the best reason to see bird lovers feeding wild birds as an exception to the principle that "People shouldn't feed wild animals." There are two reasons given for following that principle: "it makes them dependent on humans" and "it makes them less likely to survive on their own." An exception to the principle would have to be a situation where at least one of those things was not true. So we either need to know that these bird lovers' feeding the wild birds, (1) does NOT make them dependent on humans, or (2) does NOT make them less likely to survive on their own. Either one will give us some justification for making the exception. Answer choice E fits the first one: because of our own (human) settlement patterns, most wild birds ALREADY must depend on human sources of food. So by feeding them, the bird lovers are not "making them" dependent on humans. The wild birds already ARE dependent in that way. There's our exception to the principle!

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[amazagri]

I have an issue. Why does the exception have to undermine the two components of the principle. I feel that is somewhat unneeded. We just need a benefit that will make us make an exception to the principle. For example, Eating carbohydrates makes one gain weight, so people shouldn't eat carbohydrates. An exception to this rule would be something like Jon needs carbohydrates in order to fight against cancer. Clearly, this would mean that even though eating carbohydrates will make Jon gain weight that is okay because we have a benefit that comes from it. B and E both do this. E is just stronger because it uses MOST as opposed to the weaker some in B.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi amazagri,

For a strengthen question, we can bring in outside information that's relevant here. But our principle here is causal. You shouldn't feed wild animals BECAUSE it makes them dependent and less likely to survive on their own. Our situation that we are trying to support is one where we are feeding wild animals. We have the cause, but we want the effect not to occur. Because of the causal relationship, we want something that strengthens the exception by breaking down that causal relationship.

For answer choice (B) here, it gives us a benefit to wild birds, but it doesn't actually help the exception. If feeding the birds makes them less likely to survive on their own, we wouldn't have the benefit of birds consuming pests because they wouldn't be as likely to survive.

Hope that helps!

[amazagri]

The problem I have is the stem says less likely to survive on their OWN and in this context the own means without the help - but if people keep feeding they keep the help, not less likely in general to survive. Even in my example above, Sure the subject will gain weight from the carbohydrates but that is okay because of the benefit of fighting against the cancer. I still see B as being a potential answer choice because it presents the sure, it will make them dependent and less likely to survive on their own, but that is okay because the birds are eating pest and mosquitoes. I think E is just stronger cuz of the word MOST meaning a majority. So B is saying at the very least one species of bird so 400 birds out of the 2 million out there, vs E saying 1.1 million out of the 2 million. So in terms of quantity E is a stronger word. However, even in the context of the cause and effect relationship - why does that have to be the case that we have to show the effect doesnt occur? i think common sense shows that finding a benefit is a way to make an exception to a principle, as i showed with my previous example.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi amazagri,

Here's another way to think about it.

Answer choice (B) gives us a reason that people might want wild birds, but it doesn't address the causal relationship here. That means that even if answer choice (B) is true, then it doesn't impact the fact that people shouldn't feed wild birds. The reasons for that ban, if (B) is our answer choice, still stand.

Answer choice (E) however rules out the reasons given. We shouldn't feed wild birds because it makes birds dependent and less likely to survive on their own. But answer choice (E) tells us they can't survive on their own ("must depend on human...") and so making them dependent on humans is not a reason to avoid feeding them. They don't become dependent on humans; they ARE dependent on humans. They aren't less likely to survive because they won't survive without help.

Here's an example: You shouldn't speed because you could lose control of your car and injure yourself and others. Arguing "but, speeding gets you to your destination faster," doesn't weaken the original causal chain. It's another consideration, but it doesn't mean that the losing control and injuring yourself become irrelevant. You still have those reasons that mean you shouldn't speed per the stimulus. You need something that addresses the reasons given in order to weaken the principle.

Hope that helps.