PrepTest 94+, Section 4, Question 18
Land developer: In a certain nation, stringent regulations prevent private landowners from building on their land if any endangered species is present on it. These regulations make the presence of endangered species a severe financial liability for many landowners and thereby discourage the landowners from protecting the endangered species on their land. Therefore, endangered species would very likely not be harmed by removal of the regulations on land development.
Land developer: In a certain nation, stringent regulations prevent private landowners from building on their land if any endangered species is present on it. These regulations make the presence of endangered species a severe financial liability for many landowners and thereby discourage the landowners from protecting the endangered species on their land. Therefore, endangered species would very likely not be harmed by removal of the regulations on land development.
Land developer: In a certain nation, stringent regulations prevent private landowners from building on their land if any endangered species is present on it. These regulations make the presence of endangered species a severe financial liability for many landowners and thereby discourage the landowners from protecting the endangered species on their land. Therefore, endangered species would very likely not be harmed by removal of the regulations on land development.
Land developer: In a certain nation, stringent regulations prevent private landowners from building on their land if any endangered species is present on it. These regulations make the presence of endangered species a severe financial liability for many landowners and thereby discourage the landowners from protecting the endangered species on their land. Therefore, endangered species would very likely not be harmed by removal of the regulations on land development.
The reasoning in the land developer's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?
It confuses a condition whose presence would be required in order for a certain result to be produced with a condition whose presence would be required to prevent that result from occurring.
It justifies a claim containing a value judgment solely on the basis of factual claims that do not in themselves entail that value judgment.
It unjustifiably overlooks the possibility that even if certain factors tend to produce a given effect, they may be likely to produce stronger countervailing effects as well.
It fails to take into account the possibility that policies that are not in the interest of land developers may well be in the interest of landowners.
It fails to account for potential reactions from private landowners who do not have any endangered species on their land.
Explanations
The argument goes like this:
In a particular place, if an endangered species lives on a piece of private property, regulations prevent landowners from building on that land. This makes having an endangered species on your land a severe financial liability—you can't improve the property. Because of this liability, landowners are discouraged from protecting the endangered species—in other words, they don't take measure to ensure the species' safety. But then they conclude that these endangered species would very likely not be harmed should the land development regulations be lifted.
Bull crap.
Wood peckers are a great analogy, here. Some species are endangered. Despite this, a woodpecker can really mess up your house if it chooses to do so. I know plenty of folks who would go woodpecker hunting on their property if they were allowed to do so.
In other words, if people aren't taking measures to protect these species in light of the regulations, why would we think we wouldn't harm them if the regulations were lifted? The regulations don't produce the liability in and of themselves. The creatures play a role in the liability, too.
It turns out to be a flaw question. So I need something the argument did, and did wrong. I'm predicted something like, "overlooks the possibility that land owners would harm endangered species if the regulations were lifted."
No. This is word salad. This answer choice suggests that the passage treats the regulations—a condition that produces harm to species—is mistakenly treated as a condition that prevents harm. The author totally thinks the regulations prevent harm, so this isn't even something the passage is doing. Can't pick it.
Not even close. Show me the value judgment. Struggling to find it? Good, because t's not in there.
Absolutely. This is worded awkwardly, but it's correct. The "certain factors [that] tend to produce a given effect" are the regulations. The effect is the prevention of harm to endangered species, the removal of which might "produce [a] stronger countervailing effect," i.e., landowners deciding to kill off endangered species to improve their property once the regulations are lifted.
No. This mistakenly assumes that the presence of these species is somehow beneficial to the landowners, and we can't assume that without evidence. Be careful to let your biases creep in here. I love me some endangered species, and I want to protect them, but how I feel has no bearing on this argument.
Nah, this is completely tangential to the argument. We don't care about reactions from landowners that aren't affected by this problem in the first place.
0 Comments