Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardTwo-Speaker Dialogues (Point at Issue)

Review the dialogue below regarding conservation science. Then, match each proposition on the left to the correct description of the speakers' stances on the right, based strictly on the information provided in the text.

Dr. Lin: Reviving extinct species like the thylacine is an indefensible allocation of scientific resources. Such initiatives provide no tangible benefit to currently living ecosystems, and they siphon capital away from habitat protection, which remains a fundamentally important pillar of biodiversity maintenance.

Dr. Thorne: I concede that habitat protection is a fundamentally important pillar, but your assessment ignores the technological externalities. The advanced genomic tools refined during de-extinction efforts are actively being repurposed to restore genetic diversity in endangered extant populations. Consequently, underwriting de-extinction research qualifies as a sound conservation practice.

  • De-extinction initiatives produce no practical advantages for currently existing ecosystems.Dr. Lin agrees, but Dr. Thorne disagrees.
  • The protection of existing habitats is a fundamentally important pillar of biodiversity maintenance.Both Dr. Lin and Dr. Thorne agree.
  • Allocating capital to de-extinction research represents a sound conservation practice.Dr. Thorne agrees, but Dr. Lin disagrees.
  • The primary motivation for scientists working on de-extinction is the preservation of extant endangered populations.Neither speaker's explicit stance can be determined from the text.

Answer

The correct matches are:
1. 'De-extinction initiatives produce no practical advantages...' maps to 'Dr. Lin agrees, but Dr. Thorne disagrees'.
2. 'The protection of existing habitats is a fundamentally important pillar...' maps to 'Both Dr. Lin and Dr. Thorne agree'.
3. 'Allocating capital to de-extinction research represents a sound conservation practice' maps to 'Dr. Thorne agrees, but Dr. Lin disagrees'.
4. 'The primary motivation for scientists...' maps to 'Neither speaker's explicit stance can be determined from the text'.
In Logical Reasoning dialogues, speakers often share background premises while disagreeing on conclusions or specific applications. Here, both explicitly agree on the importance of habitat protection. They disagree on the practical benefits of de-extinction for living ecosystems and, consequently, its validity as a conservation practice. Neither discusses the subjective motivations of the researchers.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze Dr. Lin's core argument and premises.
Lin believes de-extinction is indefensible, has zero practical benefit to living ecosystems, and drains funds from habitat protection, which Lin views as fundamental.
Establishing the first speaker's exact commitments is necessary to evaluate the propositions.
2
Analyze Dr. Thorne's core argument and points of intersection.
Thorne concedes habitat protection is fundamental (agreement point), but argues de-extinction yields tools for living endangered populations (disagreement on benefits), making it a sound practice (disagreement on defensibility).
Identifying where the second speaker concedes, counters, or ignores the first speaker's points isolates the points at issue.
3
Evaluate each proposition against the established stances.
Proposition 1 maps to Lin agreeing and Thorne disagreeing. Proposition 2 is a shared premise. Proposition 3 is Thorne's main conclusion, which Lin rejects. Proposition 4 introduces outside information (scientists' internal motivations) not addressed by either.
Strict text-based matching ensures no outside assumptions are applied.

Key Concept

Identifying Points of Agreement and Disagreement in Dialogues
Rate this question

Topics

Two-Speaker Dialogues (Point at Issue)

More questions from this topic