Biologist: Conservation biologists working to prevent species extinction have long acknowledged that popular species such as lions, eagles, and pandas...
GMAT Two Part Analysis : (TPA) Questions
Biologist: Conservation biologists working to prevent species extinction have long acknowledged that popular species such as lions, eagles, and pandas receive disproportionately large amounts of funding and public attention as compared to less-popular species such as invertebrates and amphibians. Indeed, many of these less-popular species are more in danger of extinction than the more popular species. Although many conservation biologists have accepted this pattern of disproportionate funding, I believe it needs to stop. For, despite the substantial and continuing expenditure of resources on the more-popular species, very few of these species have any chance of escaping extinction.
The biologist's reasoning is subject to the criticism that the claim that \(\mathrm{A}\), which is used to justify the main point, undermines the support for the point that \(\mathrm{B}\). Select for A and for B the options such that criticism of the zoologist's reasoning is strongest. Make only two selections, one in each column.
Phase 1: Owning the Dataset
Argument Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| "Conservation biologists... have long acknowledged that popular species such as lions, eagles, and pandas receive disproportionately large amounts of funding and public attention as compared to less-popular species" |
|
| "many of these less-popular species are more in danger of extinction than the more popular species" |
|
| "I believe it needs to stop" |
|
| "despite the substantial and continuing expenditure of resources on the more-popular species, very few of these species have any chance of escaping extinction" |
|
Argument Structure
- Main conclusion: The disproportionate funding pattern needs to stop
- Supporting evidence: Very few popular species will escape extinction despite substantial funding
- Implicit assumption: If species can't be saved, they shouldn't receive disproportionate funding
- Background facts: Popular species get more funding; less-popular species are often more endangered
Phase 2: Question Analysis & Prethinking
Understanding What Each Part Asks
The question asks us to find:
- Part A: A claim used to justify the main point
- Part B: A point whose support is undermined by claim A
The twist is that we need to find where the biologist's own reasoning creates a self-contradiction.
Prethinking
Looking at the argument, the biologist uses "very few popular species can escape extinction" to justify stopping their disproportionate funding. But this creates a logical problem:
- If popular species are so endangered they can't be saved, maybe their high funding is actually justified rather than disproportionate
- The claim meant to support the conclusion actually undermines a key premise
Phase 3: Answer Choice Evaluation
Evaluating Each Choice
- "popular species receive a disproportionate amount of the money and public attention"
- This is a key premise in the argument
- Could work for Part B if its support is undermined - "funding and public attention should not be wasted on the preservation of endangered species"
- Too extreme - the biologist isn't saying all funding is wasted
- Doesn't match the argument - "certain popular species are more endangered than many believe"
- Not explicitly stated in the argument
- Doesn't fit either part well - "many species that are not popular are likely to escape extinction"
- Contradicts what the passage says about less-popular species being more endangered
- Doesn't match the argument - "very few of the more-popular species have any chance of escaping extinction"
- This is exactly the claim used to justify the main conclusion
- Perfect fit for Part A
The Correct Answers
For Part A: Choice 5 - "very few of the more-popular species have any chance of escaping extinction"
- This is the exact claim the biologist uses to justify why disproportionate funding should stop
For Part B: Choice 1 - "popular species receive a disproportionate amount of the money and public attention"
- The criticism is that if popular species are so doomed (claim A), this undermines the idea that their funding is "disproportionate" - maybe it's appropriate given how endangered they are
Common Traps to Highlight
The key trap here is missing the self-undermining nature of the argument. Students might:
- Focus on what the biologist explicitly says without seeing the logical contradiction
- Miss that "disproportionate" implies "too much" or "unjustified" - but if species are extremely endangered, high funding might be justified
- Get confused about which claim undermines which, rather than seeing how the justification contradicts a premise
The biologist essentially argues: "Popular species get too much funding → We should stop this because they're doomed anyway" - but if they're that doomed, maybe the high funding isn't "too much" after all!