Naturalist: For decades we have known that the tuatara, a New Zealand reptile, have been approaching extinction on th...

Mehran February 5, 2014

The conclusion of the argument is: human beings are now obliged to prevent the extinction of the tuatara on South Island.

Why? Because despite the previous belief that the South Island tautara was of the same species as the North Island tautara, and so there was no need to save it from extinction, it has now been found that the South Island tautara are a distinct species, found only in that location. And so if the South Island tautara are lost, an entire species will be lost. Thus, the argument revolves around this change from believing that the tautara would be extinct only locally to realizing that it would be a global extinction.

The addendum of "even if it means killing many of their un-endangered natural predators" is not the point of the argument. The argument follows the rule that once a species is said to be close to global extinction, human beings must step in to save it. Thus, answer choice (E) does not most help justify the naturalists's argumentation. The naturalists' argumentation never implies that species only found in one specific location must be given more care and attention than those not vulnerable to extinction.

Rather, the argument is stating that now due to new information shedding light on the fact that South Island tautara are in fact becoming globally extinct, as opposed to just locally extinct, human beings must step in, regardless of harm this intervention may cause to un-endangered natural predators.

Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

Batman February 15, 2014

Thanks a lot, and happy Valentine's day over there!!! ^^