Q12 - Harris: Currently hybrid animals

[griffin.811]

I was hung on A for a few seconds. A is incorret because Vogels language implies the hybrid dies out in the future, in which case we don't need current methods to work. If future methods are accurate then we would still be ok.

[tommywallach]

Hey Griffin,

Not exactly. Vogel's argument is as follows:

Conclusion: Hybrids don't need protection
Premise: Hybrids can be revived by interbreeding original species

(A) Imagine for a second if (A) weren't true: The current techniques to determine hybrids have NOT proven to be unreliable. That would mean we don't really know what animals are hybrids and which ones aren't. So what? We could still revive hybrids by interbreeding original species, so we still wouldn't need to protect them.

(B) Enforcement of old laws isn't important; we'd be more concerned with enforcement of the hybrid protection laws.

(C) Vogel's argument requires gray wolves to mate with coyotes in captivity, not gray wolves to mate with each other in captivity.

(D) CORRECT. If this weren't true, hybrids could not be recovered once they were lost, so we would want hybrid protection.

(E) Vogel's argument couldn't rely on this, because we know this to be patently false. Harris says so, and Vogel's argument doesn't contradict it.

Hope that helps!

-t

[coco.wu1993]

(A) Imagine for a second if (A) weren't true: The current techniques to determine hybrids have NOT proven to be unreliable. That would mean we don't really know what animals are hybrids and which ones aren't. So what? We could still revive hybrids by interbreeding original species, so we still wouldn't need to protect them.

But if you cannot tell whether an an endangered species is a hybrid or not, how can you revive it by interbreeding its "original species"? You don't even know that it has original species!

[gaheexlee]

I have the same question as coco.wu1993

Isn't A saying that the techniques are reliable in letting people know from what two species hybrids are born from?

If we negate A to say that the techniques aren't reliable, then how can Vogel's conclusion follow? If the techniques aren't reliable, then we don't know what species the hybrids come from, which means we don't know which species to interbreed to revive the hybrid population. This directly contradicts her conclusion.

I understand why (D) is correct, but I'm still unsure why (A) is incorrect. Can someone help?

[christine.defenbaugh]

I have the same question as coco.wu1993

Isn't A saying that the techniques are reliable in letting people know from what two species hybrids are born from?

Interesting question, gaheexlee!

I think you're actually misreading (A) just a tad. This answer is talking about the techniques being used to determine whether a population of animals is a hybrid. So, if it were unreliable, it would mistakenly label a non-hybrid a hybrid, or vice versa.

You're reading it as a technique that simply tells you, once you already know something is a hybrid. what the original species are. That's totally different!

So, now let's take a look at what happens if we have an unreliable "hybrid species labeling mechanism". This could mean that the hybrid-zebra-platypus gets overlooked as a hybrid. Poor zebra-platypus, everyone thinks it's an independent species.

So, let's take a look at Vogel's final conclusion: Hybrids don't need (legal) protection.

Our negated assumption should make that a crazy thing to say - we need some serious support for the possibility that maybe legal protection IS needed for hybrids. Key here, though, is realizing that creating a legal protection for hybrids won't magically tell us who the hybrids are that we're trying to protect.

Now, back to the ignored zebra-platypus. If we don't even know that's a hybrid, you and coco.wu1993 are right that it wouldn't be easy to revive by interbreeding, because we wouldn't even know we're supposed to do that (since we don't know it's a hybrid). But what would this mean for the final conclusion, that hybrids don't need legal protection? Has this terrible result shown us a possible way that we might actually need legal protection for the hybrids?

Nope! Because if we don't even know that the zebra-platypus is a hybrid, then there's no way legal protection would have any benefit for it whatsoever. If we can't even identify the hybrids, then Vogel's still right: they don't need legal protection. It wouldn't help!

Please let me know if this helps clear up a few things!

[gaheexlee]

Thank you so much Christine! I always appreciate that your replies are consistently the most in-depth, clear and enthusiastic

[AzzedineI651]

Knowing the meaning of a word here can make a big difference. Assuming you do know what 'extant' means, the answer becomes obvious. All other answer choices don't talk directly to Vogel's argument, which is: Because Hybrids can be "re-bred", they don't deserve protection. They are clearly assuming that they can be "re-bred". Implicit in this assumption is that the source genes are still available, i.e. not extant.