#15 - Because of the lucrative but illegal trade in

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Assumption. The correct answer choice is (B)

The author says that we can eliminate the motivation for poaching rhinos (and thus ensure the survival of rhinos) by periodically trimming off the horns of rhinos. A few problems with this argument immediately come to mind. How frequent are the "periods"? If the horns are trimmed once every year, say, and rhino horns grow quite a bit during that year, poachers might still try to kill the rhinos for their horns during that year. Second, what if the removal of horns is unhealthy for the rhinos? We should not logically dismiss the possibility that (ironically and tragically) the removal of horns might be harmful for the rhinos' survival.

The question stem asks us for a necessary assumption. We merely need to find an answer choice which defeats one of the critiques listed above.

Answer choice (A): The argument says nothing about other animals, so this answer choice is irrelevant.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. This answer choice is necessary to the argument, because being able to attract a mate is a necessary component of the species' survival. Thus, this answer choice is a necessary element for defeating the critique about horn-less rhinos possibly being endangered.

Answer choice (C): This answer choice actually tends to weaken the argument. If some poachers don't care about horns at all, then the horn-removal policy will not discourage these poachers.

Answer choice (D): If the supply of rhino horns falls to almost zero due to the new policy, but demand stays constant, the market will equilibrate at a much higher price. Even if this were not true (say demand were to increase), poachers could raise their price, but could not raise their quantity much because horns simply would be simply no longer available in the wild after the new policy.

Answer choice (E): This answer choice tends to weaken the argument by echoing a critique made above: perhaps the horn removal itself could endanger the rhinos' survival.

[Sdaoud17]

For Nikki :
would not you agree that if you negate C (Poachers hunt at least some immature rhinoceroses whose have yet started to develop) in other words , Even with the trim Hunts will not stop killing rhinoceroses which weaken the Conclusion Which is the survival of rhinoceros.

Thank you

[Steve Stein]

Hi Sdaoud17,

Answer choice C provides that Poachers hunt at least some immature rhinos who have not developed horns. The negated version of this choice would be "Poachers don't hunt any immature rhinos who don't yet have horns."

Since this would not weaken the author's argument, this cannot be the right answer choice to this Assumption question.

Correct answer choice B, on the other hand, would be negated as follows:

"None of the rhinos w/ periodically trimmed horns will be able to attract mates."

This would crush the author's argument, confirming this choice as the right answer.

I hope that's helpful! let me know--thanks!

~Steve

[Sdaoud17]

I see Now . Even though I am Usually Good at negation ,My Negation for C completely Sucked .

Thank You

[Steve Stein]

Thanks for your response--some of those negations are pretty tricky--they deliberately include plenty of opportunities for "mis-negation."

~Steve

[jessamynlockard]

Is this a defender type assumption question?

[Jennifer Janowsky]

jessamynlockard,

At first glance, this argument seems to have a few flaws, the largest to me being that rhinos may need their horns to thrive in the wild. This would make this a Supporter Assumption question, as it has pretty noticeable gaps.

Clay Cooper does a great job describing the differences between Defender and Supporter here:

Good question - the distinction between supporter and defender assumptions can be tricky.

Remember, first, that you'll never get any points on the LSAT for knowing what an assumption is called (a supporter or defender) - more important (and the reason we use these terms) is knowing what the assumption we seek might look like - whether it will more likely be a predictable, gap-filling supporter, or a less predictable, but no less important defender. Keeping this in mind, we can discuss the practical application of the Bible's advice.

Basically, a supporter will fill in a hole in a weak or incomplete argument, often by linking together new elements, as you mentioned. Very often this takes the form of filling in a step in the argument that the author apparently skipped, or in rebutting an obvious objection to his or her reasoning.

A defender, by contrast, protects an apparently strong argument from an unforeseen or unforeseeable weakness. For instance, if I argued that:

The LA Dodgers are scheduled to play at the St. Louis Cardinals tomorrow night at 7.30, and there is no possibility of rain or snow in St. Louis and therefore someone will win the Cardinals-Dodgers game tomorrow night.

...you might not see an obvious weakness, because there really isn't one. So a supporter assumption is unlikely - the argument seems to need no further support. However, a defender assumption - for example:

The world will not end tonight at midnight.

...could absolutely be a correct answer choice, since it must be true if the argument's conclusion is to be true. Thus this answer choice defends the conclusion against the unforeseen possibility that the world might end tonight at midnight.

I hope this helps better explain the distinction!

[Lourdiana]

Good Evening - for answer B - we are to assume that the ability to for some to attract mates (even with the trimmed horns) automatically concludes the species will have a chance to stay alive correct? I feel like I'm thinking a bit too hard. This option seems like it had nothing to do with the stimulus

[Ben DiFabbio]

Good Evening - for answer B - we are to assume that the ability to for some to attract mates (even with the trimmed horns) automatically concludes the species will have a chance to stay alive correct? I feel like I'm thinking a bit too hard. This option seems like it had nothing to do with the stimulus

Hey Lourdiana,

I urge you to think closely about the task required by a necessary assumption question: Your job is to find an answer choice that presents an absolute requirement--something that is essential for the argument to work. Frame your analysis of an answer choice around the question "Must this be true?" That's where the assumption negation technique factors in. If it weren't true, would it make the argument impossible?

With regard to answer choice B, if none of the rhinoceroses whose horns are periodically trimmed off were able to attract mates, and as the stimulus suggests, we periodically trimmed off the horns of all rhinoceroses, then the population would certainly go extinct. So, it must be true that at least some trimmed rhinos would be able to attract mates.

That does not imply that answer choice B would be sufficient to guarantee the survival of of the species. It just means that the reverse would ensure the species' extinction.

I hope that helps, and happy studying!

- Ben

[Lourdiana]

Yes this was tough but this makes sense- thank you!