Logical reasoning PrepTest 120 · Section 1 · Question 2

Incorrect. Even if they are, the rate of extinction keeps increasing, and there's no indication that this increased ability is a result of the international efforts to protect animals, so it doesn't address whether those efforts were a waste.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Countries are trying to protect endangered species, but the rate of extinction increases, so these efforts are a waste.

Answer Anticipation:
The conclusion here is very strong—the international efforts to protect natural habitats and thus save endangered species is a waste. Why? Because the rate of extinctions keeps increasing.

In order to show that these efforts are a waste, it would have to be shown that they've had no positive benefit whatsoever. Contrast this with a conclusion stating that they're an inefficient use of resources—then, they could have a benefit, just one that isn't worth the cost.

Since we have the more extreme version of the conclusion, then, we can weaken it by showing any positive effect of these efforts. If there's anything positive that came out of them, then they weren't a waste.

Answer Explanation:
This answer brings up a benefit of the international efforts—some species that would have gone extinct didn't. Even if, overall, the rate of extinction is increasing, if a few species were saved, then the efforts weren't a complete waste, undercutting the conclusion.

Key Takeaway:
In Weaken questions, the strength of the conclusion is particularly important. The stronger the conclusion, the weaker the answer can be to weaken it. If a conclusion is absolute, or 100%, then a single counterexample can weaken it. Here, saying that efforts were a "waste" was the same as saying that there was no benefit to them—and thus a single benefit could weaken it.

Incorrect. This answer establishes the scope of the problem, but it doesn't address whether the efforts to solve it have been a waste.

Incorrect. The stimulus is about the countries that are working to preserve natural species, so this answer about those who don't recognize the value in doing so are out of scope. (And that's assuming that the countries here aren't working towards that goal. They might be for other reasons, which makes this answer vague enough that we could rule it out for that reason, as well.)

Incorrect. The argument is about whether efforts that already occurred were a waste, so future efforts are out of scope.