I think it is D. The reason being, if ibora is cultivated, it may not become extinct and hence the argument is weakened.
A drug that is highly effective in treating many types of infection can, at present, be obtained only from the bark of the ibora, a tree that is quite rare in the wild. It takes the bark of 5,000 trees to make one kilogram of the drug. It follows, therefore, that continued production of the drug must inevitably lead to the iboras extinction.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?
A. The drug made from ibora bark is dispensed to doctors from a central authority.
B. The drug made from ibora bark is expensive to produce.
C. The leaves of the ibora are used in a number of medical products.
D. The ibora can be propagated from cuttings and grown under cultivation.
E. The ibora generally grows in largely inaccessible places.
D was my first choice, but since that was a bust can I throw in a vote for A. Reason being, a central authority can limit how much of the drug is distributed to doctors. Since the central authority limits how much of the drug is distributed, it controls how much is manufactured, directly impacting how many of the trees are cut down?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)