Naturalist: For decades, we have learned that large lizards, reptiles of New Zealand, are endangered in the southern islands. However, because the southern island lizard is considered the same species as the northern island lizard, So there is no extinction. But because the southern island lizard is considered to be the same species as the northern island lizard, there is no need to protect them. However, new research shows that the southern island lizard is a species found only in that place. An unusual creature. Because it is now known that if the southern island lizards become extinct, then all of this species of lizards will become extinct, so people have to prevent them from extinct, even if it means killing many of them for food. Natural predator without danger of extinction. Which of the following is most helpful in justifying a naturalist's argument? ? ['In order to maximize the number of organisms on the planet, people should take steps to protect all local animal groups.', 'When an animal is in danger of death, people have an obligation to help save its life, even if doing so would impede the health or happiness of other animals or humans.', 'Regional extinction does not force people to do their best to prevent it from extinction, while global extinction forces people to work hard to protect it.', 'Human activities that intentionally and unintentionally affect animal survival should be controlled.']