Biologist: Conservation biologists working to prevent species extinction have long acknowledged that popular species such as lions, eagles, and pandas...

Phase 1: Owning the Dataset

Argument Analysis Table

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

1. "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
2. "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
3. "certain popular species are more endangered than many believe"
   - Not explicitly stated in the argument
   - Doesn't fit either part well
4. "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
5. "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!