Logical reasoning PrepTest 102 · Section 4 · Question 5

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Problem - If the ivory trade continues, elephants will go extinct
Solution - A ban on the ivory trade
Zimbabwe:
(1) Has eliminated poaching, culls elephant herds that get too big
(2) Objects to the ban
Zimbabwe argument - The problem is conservation policies, not the ivory trade

Answer Anticipation:
This Strengthen (Principle) question specifically asks us to find an answer that justifies Zimbabwe's objection to a ban on the ivory trade, so it's important for us to identify any rationale given by Zimbabwe for why they object.

Taking a step back, though, we should talk about the ban itself—why is it being proposed? The reason for it is given in the first sentence—if it continues as it is, then elephants will go extinct.

So why doesn't Zimbabwe want to ban the trade? Well, they've managed to solve the problem without banning the ivory trade. They've eliminated poaching, and they rely on money they get from culling elephant herds that are getting too big. If you have herds that are too big, you're not at risk of your elephants going extinct! And that money they get at least in part must come from selling ivory.

So, in short, Zimbabwe objects to the ban because they've solved the problem of elephant extinction without banning ivory trading, and they rely on ivory trading for income. Let's find a principle reflecting this logic.

Answer Explanation:
The stimulus raises a problem—ivory trading leading to elephant extinction—and an international measure to correct it—ban the ivory trade. Zimbabwe is not responsible for the problem—it has so many elephants that it needs to cull them! But a ban would adversely affect them because they rely on income from culling the elephants (including the ivory). This answer thus serves as a basis for their objection—they should not be adversely affected by an international measure, but they would be adversely affected by this ban. Since it justified their objection, it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Principle question answer choices frequently use general/abstract language. Note how, when analyzing answer choice (A), we substituted in the specific concepts from the stimulus to the language of that answer. That's a great way to analyze these general answers—and if some of the language doesn't match with a concrete concept from the stimulus, that's enough to eliminate it!

Incorrect. An agreement among nations, in this case, would be a ban on an ivory trade, thus justifying the ban instead of a "right" of Zimbabwe to engage in ivory trading.

Incorrect. This is a tempting trap answer! However, sovereignty works both ways—countries adopting a ban on the ivory trade would be exercising their sovereign right to protect animals. This answer doesn't justify preventing a ban that certain countries support.

Incorrect. The stimulus never discusses the enforcement of the ban, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. Zimbabwe addressed the potential extinction of elephants in their country by virtually eliminating poaching, but that doesn't mean it was a necessary step in doing so—just seemingly a sufficient one. Additionally, there's no indication that a ban on the ivory trade wouldn't align with the elimination of poaching—maybe, by removing the incentive to poach, this ban would end it.