Environmental ethicist: Since whooping cranes, unlike sandhill cranes, are endangered as a species, the survival of a...

Skylar on June 3, 2020

@kendalla14, happy to help!

We should notice a jump between the passage stating that the survival of any one endangered whooping crane is more important to the preservation of its species than is the survival of any one non-endangered sandhill crane and the passage ultimately concluding that we therefore have a greater duty to protect whooping cranes than we do sandhill cranes. The correct answer will fill in this missing link between an animal's importance to the preservation of its species and our duty to protect that animal.

(B) is correct because it does this. It states that "the more important the survival of individual members is to the preservation of a species, the greater the duty to protect the lives of that species' individual members." This matches the passage's logic, as an individual whooping crane is more important to the preservation of its species, so we can conclude that we have a greater duty to protect it.

(E) states that "there is a greater duty to protect one individual organism over another only if the former organism is a member of an endangered species and the latter organism is not." This is incorrect because of the phrase "only if," which we know is a necessary indicator. This means that (E) is saying: (If there is a) greater duty to protect one individual organism over another -> (then) the former organism is an endangered species and the latter is not. This flips the passage's logic, as we want to make a conclusion about our duty to protect lives based on information about the animal's species, not the other way around. Moreover, this does not account for instances in which both species at hand are endangered/both are not endangered.

Does that make sense? Please let us know if you have any other questions!