Logical reasoning PrepTest 113 · Section 2 · Question 24

Incorrect. Salvador's recommendation is about altering buying habits, not spreading information, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. Antique and new ivory are arguably substitutes for each other, but Sal recommends against buying any ivory without establishing that there's another material that can serve as a substitute, so this answer doesn't line up with his argument.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't establish when elephants became endangered. And, if anything, this answer would leave an opening for buying antique ivory, which Sal recommends against.

Incorrect. Sal doesn't discuss poachers or other people involved in the ivory trade quitting their work, so this answer is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle) - Salvador

Stimulus Summary:
R: New and antique ivory are completely different markets, so buying antique doesn't result in poaching, and thus those concerned about elephants should stick to the old stuff, not the new stuff.

S: There's more demand for antique ivory than there is supply, so buying it means some people who want the old stuff will buy new stuff when they can't find it. If you love elephants, you shouldn't buy any type of ivory.

Answer Anticipation:
Strengthen (Principle) questions usually reach judgments in the conclusion based on details in a described situation. The correct answer connects those details to the judgment.

The judgment made by Sal here is a recommendation—those who care about elephants should not buy any ivory. Why does he believe this? Because this will reduce the demand for new ivory, thus contributing in some way to protecting the elephant population. So we need an answer that justifies that recommendation based on those details, but we want to make sure it isn't too generic—it would be easy to anticipate an answer that just says: People who care about something should do stuff to protect it. That's not specific enough to this argument!

So what, specifically, is the reasoning here? It's that those who care about elephants should take an action that's going to cause demand for new ivory to drop. How is that going to work? By increasing the amount of antique ivory available, thus causing people who don't care either way to buy that instead of the new ivory. It's hard to anticipate exactly how the answer here is going to be phrased, but let's find something that works with these details.

Answer Explanation:
This answer deals with the details of Sal's argument. He makes a recommendation to those who care about endangered species, but it's based on the overall market—which includes those who are "unconcerned about endangered species." Since they'll buy either antique or new ivory, buying up all the antique ivory would result in them buying new ivory, which puts elephants at risk of poaching. So those who are concerned refraining from buying any ivory will help to reduce the poaching due to those unconcerned buying new ivory by freeing up old ivory for them to buy. This answer is convoluted, but it justifies Sal's recommendation, so it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Anticipating a principle is a bit like threading a needle. You want to anticipate an answer that's sufficiently abstract/general that you're not tied very specifically to the argument you're dealing with, as principles tend to be applicable to multiple situations. However, make it too generic and it can apply to almost any scenario. The right level generally removes most of the content while keeping the same amount of details.