Despite increasing international efforts to protect the natural habitats of endangered species of animals, the rate a...

Ravi on April 24, 2020

Let's look at (B).

(B) says, "Species that would have become extinct have been saved due
to the establishment of animal refuges."

Recall that we're looking to weaken the argument. (B) tells us that
our efforts haven't been wasted; they've actually saved a few species.
While it's true that the rate is increasing, it would be increasing by
even more if it weren't for the work that conservationists have done.

Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!

on February 2 at 03:48PM

My question with B is that it specified the species but not the habitats, and in the prompt it specified that the primary focus was rehabilitating the habitats of endangered species rather than the species themselves. What am I missing?

Emil on February 3 at 12:33AM

Hi, B explicitly mentions the habitats. An animal refuge is probably the most common type of preserved habitat.

Alexis on September 4 at 03:12PM

I thought the "animal refuge" was out of the scope. I tried to connect it and figured if I was trying to make it make sense then it wasn't;t the answer. I chose A

Alexis on September 4 at 03:12PM

I thought the "animal refuge" was out of the scope. I tried to connect it and figured if I was trying to make it make sense then it wasn't;t the answer. I chose A

Emil on September 5 at 12:12AM

This is a reason that I hate the concept of scope. If we go looking for things that are in our out of scope it becomes so easy to dismiss answer choices because the connection requires a little more thinking. An animal refuge is definitionally an example of preserved habitat, but it's so easy to dismiss that when hunting for scope.