ection #3 #1) Scientists believe somewhere between 200 and 2,000 species become extinct every year—many more than official counts record. And that number could be even higher. By the time you go to bed tonight, one, 10, or maybe more species that have been on Earth for millions of years will be gone forever. #2) Although de-extinction has been touted as a way of reversing this horrible trend, this argument doesn’t hold up. For the millions of dollars it would cost to bring one species back from extinction and support it in the wild, we could save dozens more species from going extinct in the first place. Because scientists have limited resources, a decision to do one thing is a decision not to do another: A decision to spend millions on resurrecting one species is a decision to neglect others and allow them to go extinct. #3) The process of bringing back an extinct species is not only expensive, it’s risky. In most cases, the habitat for the extinct species people want to resurrect is gone or seriously altered. Mammoths, for example, went extinct after the Arctic began warming 10,000 years ago. It’s much warmer there now than it was then, and it’s getting hotter every year. The most likely result of bringing back extinct species is that we’d find ourselves trapped in a cycle where we would need to spend more and more money just to keep their tiny populations alive. #4)Those who support bringing back extinct species will say that doing so will help support other species. But we already have many important species—such as elephants, tigers, and rhinos—that are in serious trouble. Why not work on keeping them alive? They’ll also argue that by resurrecting an extinct species, we’ll learn many lessons on genetics and breeding. But we can learn exactly the same lessons by working on trying to save living species. There’s also the risk that reintroducing long-extinct species will actually hurt the environment if these species spread out of control. #5) The evidence is overwhelming: De-extinction is not a good investment for the environment. It may well be interesting science, but it’s not conservation. —JOSEPH BENNETT Assistant Professor of Biology, Carleton University 9. What strategy does Joseph Bennett use in section #3 that shows the reader he has considered different viewpoints? (1 point) Responses responds to possible counterarguments responds to possible counterarguments uses data and statistics uses data and statistics uses anecdotes uses anecdotes uses testimonials uses testimonials Question 2 10. Which is a claim that Bennett disagrees with in section #3?(1 point) Responses De-extinction is too expensive. De-extinction is too expensive. De-extinction is risky. De-extinction is risky. De-extinction is harmful to the environment. De-extinction is harmful to the environment. De-extinction is helpful in understanding genetics and breeding. De-extinction is helpful in understanding genetics and breeding. Question 3 11. Which is an example of evidence? (HINT: Look for a statement of fact, not an opinion.)(1 point) Responses Although de-extinction has been touted as a way of reversing this horrible trend, this argument doesn't hold up. Although de-extinction has been touted as a way of reversing this horrible trend, this argument doesn't hold up. It may well be interesting science, but it's not conservation. It may well be interesting science, but it's not conservation. Scientists believe that somewhere between 200 and 2,000 species become extinct every year - many more than official counts record. Scientists believe that somewhere between 200 and 2,000 species become extinct every year - many more than official counts record. Why not work on keeping them alive? Why not work on keeping them alive? Skip to navigation

Question

ection #3 #1) Scientists believe somewhere between 200 and 2,000 species become extinct every year—many more than official counts record. And that number could be even higher. By the time you go to bed tonight, one, 10, or maybe more species that have been on Earth for millions of years will be gone forever. #2) Although de-extinction has been touted as a way of reversing this horrible trend, this argument doesn’t hold up. For the millions of dollars it would cost to bring one species back from extinction and support it in the wild, we could save dozens more species from going extinct in the first place. Because scientists have limited resources, a decision to do one thing is a decision not to do another: A decision to spend millions on resurrecting one species is a decision to neglect others and allow them to go extinct. #3) The process of bringing back an extinct species is not only expensive, it’s risky. In most cases, the habitat for the extinct species people want to resurrect is gone or seriously altered. Mammoths, for example, went extinct after the Arctic began warming 10,000 years ago. It’s much warmer there now than it was then, and it’s getting hotter every year. The most likely result of bringing back extinct species is that we’d find ourselves trapped in a cycle where we would need to spend more and more money just to keep their tiny populations alive. #4)Those who support bringing back extinct species will say that doing so will help support other species. But we already have many important species—such as elephants, tigers, and rhinos—that are in serious trouble. Why not work on keeping them alive? They’ll also argue that by resurrecting an extinct species, we’ll learn many lessons on genetics and breeding. But we can learn exactly the same lessons by working on trying to save living species. There’s also the risk that reintroducing long-extinct species will actually hurt the environment if these species spread out of control. #5) The evidence is overwhelming: De-extinction is not a good investment for the environment. It may well be interesting science, but it’s not conservation. —JOSEPH BENNETT Assistant Professor of Biology, Carleton University 9. What strategy does Joseph Bennett use in section #3 that shows the reader he has considered different viewpoints? (1 point) Responses responds to possible counterarguments responds to possible counterarguments uses data and statistics uses data and statistics uses anecdotes uses anecdotes uses testimonials uses testimonials Question 2 10. Which is a claim that Bennett disagrees with in section #3?(1 point) Responses De-extinction is too expensive. De-extinction is too expensive. De-extinction is risky. De-extinction is risky. De-extinction is harmful to the environment. De-extinction is harmful to the environment. De-extinction is helpful in understanding genetics and breeding. De-extinction is helpful in understanding genetics and breeding. Question 3 11. Which is an example of evidence? (HINT: Look for a statement of fact, not an opinion.)(1 point) Responses Although de-extinction has been touted as a way of reversing this horrible trend, this argument doesn't hold up. Although de-extinction has been touted as a way of reversing this horrible trend, this argument doesn't hold up. It may well be interesting science, but it's not conservation. It may well be interesting science, but it's not conservation. Scientists believe that somewhere between 200 and 2,000 species become extinct every year - many more than official counts record. Scientists believe that somewhere between 200 and 2,000 species become extinct every year - many more than official counts record. Why not work on keeping them alive? Why not work on keeping them alive? Skip to navigation

Answer 1

9. The strategy that Joseph Bennett uses in section #3 that shows the reader he has considered different viewpoints is that he responds to possible counterarguments.

10. A claim that Bennett disagrees with in section #3 is that de-extinction is helpful in understanding genetics and breeding.

11. An example of evidence is "Scientists believe that somewhere between 200 and 2,000 species become extinct every year - many more than official counts record."