1. Edward J. Maruska cites statistics to support his contention that extinction is a serious problem. Robert W. Lee counters that argument by providing examples of rediscovered species once thought extinct. Are you more convinced by Maruska’s evidence or Lee’s? Explain your answer.

2. Alston Chase argues that extinction is not only a natural occurrence but often a beneficial one, yet George Wuerthner calls extinction “one of the gravest threats to native wildlife and plants.” What evidence does each writer present to support his position and which argument do you find more convincing? Why"

3. Kelly Luker claims that the loss of biodiversity associated with modern breeding practices of domestic livestock threatens our food supply and is an “economic and social disaster in the making.” Do you agree with her argument? Why or why not? Which do you feel is more...