Logical reasoning PrepTest 143 · Section 4 · Question 23

Incorrect. This answer doesn't justify preserving the "maximum number" of species, and it doesn't base it on the premises of the argument, so this answer is incorrect.

Incorrect. The Columnist's argument rests on uncertainty in outcomes to call for action to preserve species, and this answer runs counter to that.

Incorrect. First, this answer talks about preventing more extinctions "than necessary," which isn't the same as calling for maximizing the species saved. Second, the premise is based on the viability of other species, not the flourishing of human populations.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Principle (Strengthen)

Stimulus Summary:
Letting some species go extinct might endanger others, so we should try to protect as many species as possible.

Answer Anticipation:
Principle (Strengthen) questions ask us to justify the judgment made in the conclusion of the argument by connecting it to the details in the premises of the argument.

Here, the conclusion is a recommendation as to what we should do—we should try to save as many species as possible (we're cutting out the "if we have an interest in preserving any," as we obviously have an interest in preserving ourselves). What is this recommendation based on? Well, there's a lot of uncertainty around how species interrelate, and one dying out might cause others to die out, as well. So the correct answer should state something to the effect of:

If uncertain outcomes for a certain outcome make it possible for other negative outcomes to happen, then we should work to prevent that outcome from occurring.

Answer Explanation:
This answer is in the ballpark of our anticipation, but it does shift from the "should" in the stimulus to a "should not," which would generally be a reason to eliminate it. However, the stimulus says we should maximize the number of preserved species, which does align with not allowing a change to occur (that change being a species dying out), so we can't eliminate it because of that. And, in fact, we shouldn't eliminate it at all—we can rephrase this answer as, "If we're not certain that a change won't endanger things we think are important, we shouldn't let that change happen." The stimulus based a conclusion about preventing extinctions—not letting animals we view as important die out—on a premise about uncertainty around the effects of those extinctions. This answer is a general restatement of that, so it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Usually, a Principle (Strengthen) question with a "should" conclusion needs the answer to match—a "should not" answer could be eliminated. However, don't apply this rule of thumb rotely—with some clever rephrasing such as in this answer, a "should" can be justified with a "should not." Especially when the conclusion in the stimulus is about stopping or preventing something from happening, that flip can be justified.

Incorrect. There's no indication that pulling out the stops to prevent the maximum number of extinctions will result in the best short-term consequences—it's possible that saving fewer species will be better short-term. This is especially true given that the stimulus raises the uncertainty of the effect these extinctions will have—it'd be hard to know what has the best consequences!