Logical reasoning PrepTest 153 · Section 3 · Question 23

Incorrect. This weakens, or maybe even destroys, the argument in the stimulus. The ethicist's whole deal is that your duty to protect an animal is more about protecting its species than the individual.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Whooping cranes are endangered. Sandhill cranes aren't. That means one whooping crane is more important to the survival of its species than one sandhill crane. Thus, says an environmental ethicist, you have a greater duty to protect the life of a single whooping crane than that of a single sandhill crane.

Answer Anticipation:
Apparently all cranes are not created equal. The environmental ethicist bases their reasoning entirely on individuals' importance to the survival of their species, but we're missing a rule that connects that concept back to "duty to protect." If our duty to protect an animal doesn't vary in direct proportion to the importance of that animal to the survival of its species, the argument fall apart. So, the correct principle will be one that connects those ideas.

Answer Explanation:
This is exactly what we were looking for. "Duty to protect" tied directly to "importance in preservation of a species." Perfect rule for the argument in the stimulus.

Key Takeaway:
The hardest thing about this question is the prompt. "Closely conforms" principle questions throw off even the most advanced students from time to time. Just remember that if you're adding something from the answer choices into the argument in order to make it stronger, you're strengthening—even if the thing you're adding is a principle (rule).

Incorrect. This is out of bounds. The ethicist never said anything about a variable duty to protect various species. For all we know, they think we have the exact same duty to protect an endangered parasitic worm as a whooping crane, on the species level.

Incorrect. Not the comparison the ethicist was trying to make. We're not talking about sacrificing one individual to save a species, we're talking about our duty to two hypothetical individual animals based on their importance to their respective species.

Incorrect. This is a little too narrow. The ethicist is reasoning based on a broader idea, that the value of any given individual is proportionate to how important that individual is to the survival of its species. That could be applied to compare our duty to protect two non-endangered species.