Over 30 years ago, the smallpox virus was eradicated (removed) from the natural environment, but examples of it are still preserved in two laboratories. It is planned, however, to destroy these remaining viruses. Given that this will be the first example of a deliberate destruction of an entire species, we should think again before destroying these viruses. Years ago we thought we had the right to kill as many creatures as we liked, but now we realize we have no such right. Furthermore, we cannot know the future; we cannot justify destroying something that could be of enormous value to us one day, valuable in ways we cannot even think of now. And anyway, what possible harm can captive viruses do to us? Which one of the following best expresses the main conclusion of the above argument?
Full explanation
The author presents reasons like:
– We once thought we could destroy species freely, but we now know better.
– We can’t predict the future and the virus might be valuable someday.
– Captive viruses pose no harm.
Then they say:
Given that this will be the first example of a deliberate destruction of an entire species, we should think again before destroying these viruses.
This sentence gives the main idea of conclusion and we have to find an option that has the same idea.
Analysis of the given options Option A : This is a reason for the upcoming conclusion. Not the main conclusion.
Option B : Supporting point, not the conclusion.
Option C : Too extreme and general Option D : This is the accurate restatement of the conclusion.
Option E : A reason, not the conclusion.
In critical reasoning, an argument’s main conclusion is the single claim that every other statement exists to support — found by tracing which claim the reasons are building toward, not by position in the passage or by conclusion-signalling words like “therefore”. A statement that merely restates one of the supporting reasons, however strongly worded, is not the conclusion itself.