Thanks for the question! Let’s walk through the argument first. Derek’s point is that we should start harvesting the yew trees to make effective anticancer drugs now, since an alternative might take years to make, and presumably, people would die if we waited. Lola then responds by saying that we should wait, since harvesting the yews now might threaten the survival of the yew, the owl, and damage the greater ecosystem. It seems that the main point of contention between these two has to do with whether or not to harvest the drug now based on what they each perceive to be more important (roughly speaking, human lives vs. the environment). This is what (C) tells us, and (C) is the correct answer.
(E), on the other hand, is too extreme of a claim. Clearly, Lola thinks that environmental considerations at least sometimes should have weight when human lives are at stake. However, Derek is not committed to the truth or falsehood of (E). Just because Derek advocates harvesting yews in this scenario doesn’t mean he thinks environmental considerations should NEVER have any weight when human lives are at stake. Remember to keep a lookout for extreme claims like (E), which are often marked by words like “never,†“always,†“all,†or “none.†In this case, the phrase “EVER have any weight†should draw our attention to it, and it’s this strong phrasing that makes (E) incorrect. Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any further questions if you have any.
