Question

David: Since attempting to preserve every species that is currently endangered is prohibitively expensive, the endangered species whose value to humanity is the greatest should be accorded the highest priority for preservation.
Karen: Such a policy would be unsound because it is impossible to predict the future value of a species, nor is it always possible to assess the present value of species whose contributions to humanity, though significant, are indirect.
Which of the following is the main point of Karen's reply to David?

• A. Although it would be desirable to preserve all endangered species, doing so is not economically feasible.
• B. Even if the value to humanity of a given species is known, that value should not be a factor in any decision on whether to expend effort to preserve that species.
• C. Species whose contributions to humanity are direct should have a higher priority for preservation efforts than species whose contributions to humanity are only indirect.
• D. Since the methods for deciding which species have the most value to humanity are imperfect, informed decisions cannot be made on the basis of the assessment of such value.
• E. The preservation of endangered species whose value to humanity can be reliably predicted is more important than the preservation of species whose value for humanity is unpredictable.

Hint:

When asked for the "main point" of a rebuttal, focus on the core reason why the second person disagrees. Don't confuse the premises they agree on (like cost being prohibitive) with the point of their disagreement (the method of prioritization).

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
This question asks for the main point of Karen's argument. David proposes a policy: prioritize species for preservation based on their value to humanity. Karen disagrees, calling the policy "unsound." Her entire argument is focused on explaining why it is unsound. We need to find the option that best summarizes her reasoning.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
Karen's argument has two main parts, both of which attack the feasibility of implementing David's policy:
1. It's "impossible to predict the future value of a species."
2. It's "not always possible to assess the present value" of species with indirect contributions.
The common theme is that the central criterion of David's policy—"value to humanity"—is fundamentally difficult or impossible to measure accurately. Therefore, any policy based on this measurement is flawed.
Now let's evaluate the options:
- (A) This is David's premise, which Karen accepts. It is not the main point of her reply.
- (B) Karen's argument is that the value cannot be known, not that it shouldn't be used if it were known. This statement is too extreme and misrepresents her point.
- (C) This suggests a prioritization scheme, which is what David does. Karen argues against such schemes by pointing out the difficulty of assessing value, including indirect value. She doesn't endorse prioritizing direct value.
- (D) This option accurately summarizes Karen's position. It states that the "methods for deciding" on value are "imperfect" (a fair summary of "impossible to predict" and "not always possible to assess"). Because of this imperfection, "informed decisions cannot be made on the basis of the assessment of such value," which is a good paraphrase of her conclusion that the policy is "unsound."
- (E) Karen is not proposing an alternative prioritization scheme. Her point is that predicting value is the problem, making this kind of distinction impossible to apply in practice.
Step 3: Final Answer:
Karen's main point is that David's proposed policy is unworkable because the core concept of "value to humanity" is too difficult to measure accurately, both for the future and the present. Option (D) captures this critique of the method perfectly.