Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumApplication of Principles

The Regional Forestry Department recently discovered a small population of non-native bark beetles in the Silverwood Reserve. Although these beetles have not yet caused any measurable damage to the reserve's trees, the department immediately authorized an aggressive chemical treatment to eradicate them. This chemical treatment is known to temporarily weaken native undergrowth plants. The department defended its decision by pointing out that this specific beetle species has completely devastated similar ecosystems in neighboring regions.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the Regional Forestry Department's decision?

  1. Authorities are justified in using eradication methods that temporarily harm native flora if those methods are used against a non-native species that has caused severe damage to similar ecosystems elsewhere, regardless of whether local damage has occurred.Answer
  2. B
    The only condition under which an environmental agency is justified in deploying eradication methods that temporarily harm native flora is when attempting to eliminate a non-native species known to devastate similar ecosystems.
  3. C
    Environmental agencies should delay the use of chemical treatments that negatively impact native plants until the invading species begins to cause measurable damage to the local ecosystem.
  4. D
    Any non-native insect species discovered within a protected nature reserve should be immediately eradicated using the most aggressive chemical treatments available.
  5. E
    If a chemical treatment causes only temporary harm to native undergrowth, it should generally be prioritized over non-chemical methods when dealing with invasive pests.

Answer

The correct answer is the principle stating that authorities are justified in using methods that harm native flora if targeting a species that has damaged similar ecosystems elsewhere, even without local damage.
The correct answer provides a conditional rule that perfectly aligns with the facts of the scenario. The 'if' trigger of the rule (using methods against a non-native species that severely damaged similar ecosystems, regardless of local damage) is met by the department's findings. The 'then' result (the authorities are justified in using methods that temporarily harm native flora) matches the department's exact action and intended justification. Because the trigger is met, the conclusion is logically forced to be true.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
The Regional Forestry Department was right to authorize the aggressive chemical treatment.
This is the decision that the question stem asks us to justify.
2
Identify the premises supporting the conclusion.
Premise 1: The beetles are non-native. Premise 2: They have not caused local damage yet. Premise 3: The treatment temporarily weakens native plants. Premise 4: The beetles have devastated similar ecosystems.
Understanding the evidence provided is necessary to find a principle that connects this evidence to the conclusion.
3
Formulate a prephrase for the required principle.
If a non-native species has devastated similar ecosystems, then it is justified to use a treatment that temporarily harms native plants to eradicate it, even before local damage occurs.
A justifying principle must act as a sufficient condition linking the specific facts of the case to the justification of the action taken.
4
Evaluate the options against the prephrase.
The correct option explicitly provides this sufficient condition. The other options either offer a necessary condition, contradict the conclusion, or overreach the scope.
This confirms that the selected option logically guarantees the conclusion based on the given premises.

Key Concept

Principle Justify (Strengthen)
Rate this question

Topics

Application of Principles

More questions from this topic