Top Law Schools

I know why B should be correct IF it said "species that would be extinct have been saved due to protection of natural habitat".

However, we don't know that the "efforts to protect of natural habitat" involves "establishment of animal refuges". It seems like the question expects us to take a big leap here and assume this fact.

I think the root of the problem is the definition of "natural habitat". The definition I am using is the "natural environment of an animal; where the animal lives". If the stimulus were to say "efforts to protect endangered species" instead of "efforts to protect the natural habitat", it would make sense. But since natural habitat is a location, and animal refuges do nothing (i assume because it's not explicitly stated; and also because I can't think of a reason) to help natural habitats, I would think this would be a shell answer.

Can anyone give me a better explanation? Maybe I have the definition of natural habitat incorrect.

I agree that there's a bit of a shift, but the shift is tolerable.

Here's how I solved this:

It's a weakener - so let's find the core.

Conclusion: intl efforts to protect nat. habitats wasted.

Premise: the rate at which species go extinct continues to rise.

Gap: that's a strong conclusion! Wasted? Perhaps they helped a bit, and lowered the rate from what it would have been without the efforts.

Working wrong-to-right:

(A) defer

(B) defer

(C) can be eliminated. We don't need more numbers showing that lots of animals go extinct. Have the efforts been wasted?

(D) is out of scope - who's talking about tourism?

(E) is also irrelevant. Who cares what programs have been proposed?

Back to (A) and (B).

(A) seems problematic in that the scientists are better able to preserve the habitat, but are they doing it? And, does preserving the habitat mean fewer species go extinct. Actually, we already know that there are efforts in this direction - we can assume there is some ability already. Seems like a premise booster.

(B) tells us that there are some species that are saved because of some efforts - seems like this is addressing our gap. But, it's not perfect. It switches from "natural habitats" to "refuges," - is creating an animal refuge part of the efforts to protect the natural habitats? - but we can just as easily assume that refuges are part of natural habitats as we can assume that they're not. We want the best answer, (B) is it.

I hope that helps.

Thanks, that does help. I was between A and B but chose A, knowing it was wrong.

I guess since all the 4 other answers are flat out wrong, B is "best".
Man I hope an answer like this won't be on the Oct. exam.

Cool.

In my experience, when I feel the answer I'm choosing is wrong, it is. The tough part is then choosing B - which is off-seeming too!

This question also tripped me up at first glance. Looking back at the argument core, I see that the first premise is unrelated to the answer choice. The shift is quite noticeable. However, i suppose that by eliminating the other four, B is going to be the winner by default. Still... the question is not a very good one. imo.