PrepTest 153, Section 2, Question 15

What we’re looking for

Working the answers

• A

  We are not told that many species will become extinct before we learn enough. The passage describes something that improves our chances; it does not say that we will fail to obtain that knowledge in time. A possible danger is not the same as an established outcome.

• B

  The argument does not tell us how much habitat will be lost or whether preservation will become impossible. Habitat could be relevant to saving a species, but introducing it here does not make this strong prediction follow from the two stated relationships.

• C
  Correct

  This takes a different route from the simple chain I predicted. One way to improve our understanding is to study more individuals. But as a species dwindles, fewer individuals are available to study. The very situation that makes saving it more urgent also makes that source of knowledge harder to obtain.

  Imagine researchers hoping to learn from many members of a species when very few remain. They cannot draw on the same pool of individuals that would be available if the population were larger. That limitation bears directly on the knowledge that the passage says improves our chance of saving the species.

  C does not say extinction is inevitable. It identifies a growing difficulty in getting useful knowledge, which is a much more modest conclusion.

• D

  Knowledge and action need not compete. Learning what habitat a species needs could guide the action we take to protect that habitat. Nothing in the passage ranks acquiring knowledge above taking action, and describing knowledge as helpful does not establish that comparison.

• E

  We are not told that studying a species causes harm, let alone that its harm sometimes outweighs its benefit. That would require new information about how the studies are conducted and what they do to the animals. The stated benefit of understanding does not establish a net harmful impact.