Blog

Consider the following argument and its map. Today, we are on the technological verge being able to resurrect extinct species by cloning their DNA. The excitement is palpable. Many individuals thrill at the prospect of so-called ‘de-extinction.’ But is de-extinction as prudent as it is sensational? Putting aside our dreams of taking selfies with a tyrannosaurus, should we resurrect these animals? Let’s think about it carefully. 2 The technology behind de-extinction is extraordinarily expensive so 3 bringing back extinct species would reduce the funding available for other conservation efforts. Obviously, 4 if bringing back extinct species reduces the funding available for other conservation efforts then it’s a bad idea. Furthermore, 5 species introduced into a non-native environment can harm the ecosystem and 6 any resurrected species would be introduced into a non-native environment because 7 the species’ habitat will have substantially altered in the years since that species’ extinction. And finally, 8 resurrecting extinct species could encourage us to take extinction less seriously which means that 9 it might make us less inclined to protect currently endangered animals. Consequently, despite its attractions, 1 bringing back extinct species is a bad idea.”        MC 4.4a.pngPremise 4 says “If bringing back extinct species reduces the funding available for other conservation efforts then it’s a bad idea.” Which of the following objections, if true, would show this claim to be false?

Consider the following argument and its map. Today, we are on the technological verge being able to resurrect extinct species by cloning their DNA. The excitement is palpable. Many individuals thrill at the prospect of so-called ‘de-extinction.’ But is de-extinction as prudent as it is sensational? Putting aside our dreams of taking selfies with a tyrannosaurus, should we resurrect these animals? Let’s think about it carefully. 2 The technology behind de-extinction is extraordinarily expensive so 3 bringing back extinct species would reduce the funding available for other conservation efforts. Obviously, 4 if bringing back extinct species reduces the funding available for other conservation efforts then it’s a bad idea. Furthermore, 5 species introduced into a non-native environment can harm the ecosystem and 6 any resurrected species would be introduced into a non-native environment because 7 the species’ habitat will have substantially altered in the years since that species’ extinction. And finally, 8 resurrecting extinct species could encourage us to take extinction less seriously which means that 9 it might make us less inclined to protect currently endangered animals. Consequently, despite its attractions, 1 bringing back extinct species is a bad idea.”        MC 4.4a.pngInference B takes us from “3. Bringing back extinct species would reduce the funding available for other conservation efforts” and “4. If bringing back extinct species reduces the funding available for other conservation efforts then it’s a bad idea” to “1. Bringing back extinct species is a bad idea.” What is the correct evaluation of inference B?

Consider the following argument and its map. Today, we are on the technological verge being able to resurrect extinct species by cloning their DNA. The excitement is palpable. Many individuals thrill at the prospect of so-called ‘de-extinction.’ But is de-extinction as prudent as it is sensational? Putting aside our dreams of taking selfies with a tyrannosaurus, should we resurrect these animals? Let’s think about it carefully. 2 The technology behind de-extinction is extraordinarily expensive so 3 bringing back extinct species would reduce the funding available for other conservation efforts. Obviously, 4 if bringing back extinct species reduces the funding available for other conservation efforts then it’s a bad idea. Furthermore, 5 species introduced into a non-native environment can harm the ecosystem and 6 any resurrected species would be introduced into a non-native environment because 7 the species’ habitat will have substantially altered in the years since that species’ extinction. And finally, 8 resurrecting extinct species could encourage us to take extinction less seriously which means that 9 it might make us less inclined to protect currently endangered animals. Consequently, despite its attractions, 1 bringing back extinct species is a bad idea.”        MC 4.4a.pngConsider the following objection to this argument: “The passenger pigeon went extinct in 1914. How much could the bird’s habitat have really altered in just a little more than 100 years? Surely not very much.” What part of the argument is this objection criticizing?

The number of miles employees drive to their jobs are normally distributed with a mean of 17 miles and a standard deviation of 3.4 miles. What is the probability that an employee drove less than 25.398 miles? Report your answer to 4 decimal places.

See the previous question.  If a similar incident occurred today, NATO might decide to invoke Article 5.  Explain why things are different today.

Questions 11, 12, and 13 all refer to this same scenario: The number of miles employees drive to their jobs are normally distributed with a mean of 17 miles and a standard deviation of 3.4 miles.

When Mg(OH)2 reacts with H2SO4  what are the products?  (Outcome # 1,2,6) DOK 2  

Which of the following best describes bulk transport?

Click on the carbohydrate in the cell membrane in the diagram below.

Platinum-based drugs are very effective at treating cancer, but they are also very toxic to non-cancerous cells as well. A recent study showed that platinum-based drugs affected the structure of the nucleus. Specifically, a region within the nucleus known as the nucleolus was damaged by these drugs.  This is noteworthy because the nucleolus is the area where the parts of ribosomes are made.  What process would be directly disrupted by the failure to make ribosomes?