Which is more important: the survival of an animal species as a whole or the welfare of individual animals? (similar to section 2, 2016 paper)

For the TSA essay section, there are no right or wrong answers, with the focus being more on how you make and argue your point. This is similar to an Oxford-style essay; you and your tutorial partner may argue two different sides of a debate, each with its merits and downfalls. Although there is no hard and fast rule as to how a question such as this one should be approached, I'd reccomend acknowleding both sides of the argument before picking a side and arguing for that. Crucially, though, be prepared to self-critique throughout; it shows a high level of awareness.
For example, I'd tackle this question by stating the two sides, and who might support them. On one hand, animal rights activists could argue that the life of every animal is equally important, implying we should be concentrating on improving the welfare of all animals, regardless of how endangered they may be on a species-level. Those who lean towards the conservationist argument (resources are better spent saving whole species rather than individual animals) would say that money should be spent on the species we are most likely to lose in the near future, as once they are lost, we can never get them back. In making efforts to conserve a whole species within a given area, it is likely that the welfare of individual animals within that species would also improve. Another point we could discuss is to what extent humans should be interfering with individual animal welfare in the wild (e.g. how would this impact food webs?).