Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: ZorPoints of Disagreement

Passage A
The burgeoning field of de-extinction—the use of cloning and genetic engineering to resurrect extinct species—offers a profound opportunity to rectify historical ecological wrongs. Critics often characterize this endeavor as a frivolous display of technological hubris, yet they ignore the deep moral imperative at its core. Humanity bears direct responsibility for the eradication of countless species; consequently, we possess an ethical duty to reverse this damage if the technological means to do so exist. While the habitats of these lost species have undoubtedly suffered degradation in their absence, the foundational ecosystems remain viable. Reintroducing keystone species, such as the passenger pigeon or the woolly mammoth, would not only fulfill our restorative obligations but also serve as a crucial catalyst for revitalizing and stabilizing these degraded environments.

Passage B
Proponents of de-extinction operate under the dangerous delusion that ecological history can simply be rewound. The resources poured into these high-tech resurrection projects would be far better spent on conventional conservation efforts directed at currently endangered species, whose habitats we can still realistically protect. Furthermore, the moral justification for de-extinction rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of ecological dynamics. The environments that once supported these extinct creatures have not merely degraded; they have been irreversibly transformed by climate change, human expansion, and the introduction of novel species. Bringing a mammoth into the 21st-century Arctic is not returning it to its home, but rather forcing it into an alien landscape. This is not restorative justice; it is an irresponsible ecological experiment driven by anthropocentric guilt.

The provided texts offer differing perspectives on the ethics and ecological viability of resurrecting extinct species. Which of the following propositions represents a point over which the authors of Passage A and Passage B fundamentally disagree?

  1. The original habitats of extinct species retain enough of their underlying ecological structure to allow for the successful reintegration of those species.Cevap
  2. B
    The substantial financial investments required for de-extinction research divert critical funding away from the conservation of currently endangered species.
  3. C
    The primary motivation of scientists advocating for de-extinction is a desire to demonstrate humanity's technological mastery over nature.
  4. D
    The successful reintroduction of extinct keystone species will guarantee the complete and permanent restoration of all degraded terrestrial ecosystems.
  5. E
    The eradication of countless species by historical human activity has fundamentally and irreversibly transformed the global climate.

Cevap

The authors disagree over whether the original habitats of extinct species retain enough of their underlying ecological structure to allow for the successful reintegration of those species.
The correct answer accurately captures a direct, textual conflict between the two authors. The author of Passage A explicitly asserts that 'the foundational ecosystems remain viable' and can be revitalized by reintroduced species. In direct contradiction, the author of Passage B insists that these environments have been 'irreversibly transformed' and constitute an 'alien landscape.' Therefore, the viability of the ecological structure is a genuine point of disagreement.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze Passage A to determine the author's primary stance and supporting arguments regarding de-extinction.
Passage A argues that de-extinction is a moral duty and claims that despite degradation, the 'foundational ecosystems remain viable' for reintroduced species.
Understanding the core arguments and factual assertions of the first author is necessary to find a point of conflict.
2
Analyze Passage B to identify its main contentions and how they contrast with those in Passage A.
Passage B argues de-extinction is misguided, specifically claiming that historical environments have been 'irreversibly transformed' and are now an 'alien landscape' for extinct species.
Comparing the second author's specific claims against the first author's establishes the actual points at issue.
3
Evaluate the options to find a proposition that Passage A demonstrably agrees with and Passage B demonstrably disagrees with, or vice versa.
Only the statement regarding the viability of original habitats meets this strict criterion. Passage A explicitly affirms it, while Passage B explicitly rejects it.
A true point of disagreement requires mutually exclusive stances from both texts, not just one text's opinion or a misinterpretation of their claims.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying precise points of contention between dual passages by tracking textual evidence for opposing viewpoints.
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Points of Disagreement

Bu konudan daha fazla soru