Many wildlife conservationists argue that constructing wildlife overpasses across major interstates is the most effective method for preventing habitat fragmentation. However, recent financial models indicate that the long-term maintenance costs of these elevated passages significantly exceed initial budget estimates. Because of these ongoing expenses, several regional transport authorities have concluded that building wildlife overpasses is an economically unsustainable policy. Yet, this conclusion ignores the substantial savings generated by reductions in vehicle-animal collisions, emergency response services, and related insurance claims. Therefore, constructing wildlife overpasses remains a financially sound public strategy.
In the argument given, the two bolded portions play which of the following roles?
- The first is a finding that has been used to support a position that the argument opposes; the second is a consideration presented to challenge that position and support the author's main conclusion.Answer
- BThe first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is a premise offered in direct support of that conclusion.
- CThe first is a judgment that the author explicitly defends; the second is an opposing claim that the author attempts to refute.
- DThe first provides general background information for the debate; the second is the primary conclusion reached by the regional transport authorities.
- EThe first is evidence supporting an opposing position; the second is a counterargument that the author demonstrates to be invalid.