ADMICRO

 In addition to its biological consequences, extinction poses a moral dilemma for humans, the only species capable of saving the others. The presence of humans on the planet has affected all other life forms, particularly plants and animals. Human lifestyles have proven to be incompatible with the survival of some other species. Purposeful efforts have been made to eliminate animals that prey on people, livestock, crops, or pose any threat to human livelihoods. Some wild animals have been decimated by human desire for meat, hides, fur, or other body parts with commercial value. Likewise, demand for land, water, and other natural resources has left many wild plants and animals with little to no suitable habitat. Humans have also affected nature by introducing non-native species to local areas and producing pollutants having a negative impact on the environment. The combination of these human-related effects and natural obstacles such as disease or low birthrates has proven to be too much for some species to overcome. They have no chance of survival without human help.

   As a result, societies have difficult choices to make about the amount of effort and money they are willing to spend to save imperiled species. Will people accept limits on their property rights, recreational activities, and means of livelihood to save a plant or an animal? Should saving such popular species as whales and dolphins take priority over saving obscure, annoying, or fearful species? Is it the responsibility of humans to save every kind of life form from disappearing, or is extinction an inevitable part of nature, in which the strong survive and the weak perish? These are some difficult questions that people face as they ponder the fate of other species living on this planet.

According to the passage, which of the following statements is NOT true?

Hãy suy nghĩ và trả lời câu hỏi trước khi xem đáp án

ZUNIA12
ZUNIA9
AANETWORK