seabirds

[s2006041405]

12-10)Lydia: Each year, thousands of seabirds are injured when they become entangled in equipment owned by fishing companies. Therefore, the fishing companies should assume responsibility for funding veterinary treatment for the injured birds.
Jonathan: Your feelings for the birds are admirable. Your proposal, however, should not be adopted because treatment of the most seriously injured birds would inhumanely prolong the lives of animals no longer able to live in the wild, as all wildlife should.

Jonathan uses which one of the following techniques in his response to Lydia?
(A) He directs a personal attack against her rather than addressing the argument she advances.
(B) He suggests that her proposal is based on self-interest rather than on real sympathy for the injured birds.
(C) He questions the appropriateness of interfering with wildlife in any way, even if the goal of the interference is to help.
(D) He attempts to discredit her proposal by discussing its implications for only those birds that it serves least well.
(E) He evades discussion of her proposal by raising the issue of whether her feelings about the birds are justified.

if someone take D, please explain it,thanks.

[mini_india]

..I think the answer should be (D) because it closely echoes the the last sentence of the argument (the only reason) Jonathan provides against adopting the proposal. He talks of only the most seriously injured birds who may not benefit, if at all, from treatment.

Choice (C) is tempting but it does not find support in the given stimulus. Is it (C) for you?

[s2006041405]

I chose (C) first, and I still feel it is a more proper chioce, because I cannot understant how 'the most seriously injured birds' can be 'those birds that it serves least well'.
Because lydia's proposal 'inhumanely prolongs' their life?

[mini_india]

Let's look at what (C) says -

He questions the appropriateness of interfering with wildlife in any way, even if the goal of the interference is to help.


Would you say that Jonathan is questioning the appropriateness? and would you also say that he advises to not interfere with wild life in any way? and when Jonathan says, "the treatment would inhumanely prolong their life", do you think he means the treatment is a help?

Would you like to reconsider your choice now..

[Fiver]

Must be D.
Lydia talks about all injured birds, while John talks about only the ones that are seriously injured and thus not benefitting from Lydia's proposal.

[mr.sanjogm]

tricky one :-) I went for C but agree that D is the answer

[ahsan400]

IMO-D

I tried POE...

[samarpan_bschool]

I will go with D.

Lydia's proposal talks about 'injured birds' in general, but Jonathan uses that argument to his advantage by talking only about 'seriously injured birds'.

Underlying assumption is - treating injured birds in general will help them get back to wilderness. However this assumption is not applicable to 'seriously injured birds'.

So Jonathan actually discredits Lydia's argument by talking about 'seriously injured brids', for which this assumption serves least well.

HTH