Passage Summary: A critic argues that we should leave nature alone because helping one struggling animal species always ends up making life harder for the ones that are doing fine.

Conclusion: Wildlife management experts should avoid manipulating natural habitats entirely.

Reasoning: Any environmental change made to help an endangered species will inevitably have a negative impact on species that are not endangered.

Analysis: The flaw here is an 'all or nothing' overgeneralization. The author assumes that because an action has a negative side effect on one group, the action is automatically unjustified. This ignores the possibility that the benefit of saving an endangered species might outweigh the harm done to nonendangered ones. Look for an answer that points out this failure to consider the relative importance of the outcomes or the possibility of an overall net benefit.