PrepTest 113

Incorrect. New and antique ivory are arguably satisfactory substitutes for each other, but this answer is about a substitute for ivory generally, and neither speaker discusses something that could stand in for ivory.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Point at Issue

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:
There are a lot of details to each argument here, so it can be hard to find the point at issue. However, they both seem to be against people buying new ivory, and it's the antique ivory that they disagree on, so we should focus on the details there. Let's work through Salvador's argument since he's rebutting Roxanne, so he should more directly reference her statements.

Sal starts by talking about demand for antique ivory, which isn't mentioned by Roxanne. He then talks about the buying preferences of people who don't care about elephants—another group that is out of scope of Roxanne's statements.

Sal recommends those who care about elephants don't buy any ivory at all—this is something that Roxanne weighs in on, stating that people who care about elephants are okay to buy antique ivory. So they disagree on whether it's okay to buy antique ivory. Sal then says that not buying any ivory will decrease the demand for new ivory—that runs counter to Roxanne's statement that the two markets are "entirely independent."

So the two disagree on those two points—whether the two markets are independent, and whether it's okay to buy antique ivory if you love elephants.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights one of the two points at issue between the speakers. Roxanne believes that new and antique ivory markets are "entirely independent" so she's committed to disagreeing with any connection between the markets. Salvador, on the other hand, believes that not buying any ivory—including antique ivory—will cause a decline in the new ivory market, committing him to believing that the markets are at least somewhat intertwined.

Key Takeaway:
When the arguments in the stimulus have a lot of pieces to them, start by identifying the pieces that they both talk about. Here, the big picture element that both had opinions on was the sale of antique ivory.

Incorrect. Roxanne's conclusion is directed towards those who are "concerned about such endangered species." Sal's is directed towards "[p]eople" sharing Roxanne's concern for endangered species. Therefore, neither speaks about people generally, as this answer choice states, or about what should be done outside of those who have such a concern.

Incorrect. If anything, they both seem to accept that decreasing the demand for new ivory will have some impact on elephant population levels. While they may not agree that it will have a substantial effect, this answer certainly isn't a point they disagree on.

Incorrect. The debate is over whether people should buy antique ivory, not new ivory, as this answer states.