#23 - Roxanne: To protect declining elephant herds from

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Point at Issue. The correct answer choice is (B)

Roxanne believes that buying antique ivory will have no effect on the demand for new ivory, because the two markets are entirely independent. Salvador counters her position by observing that since the demand for antique ivory exceeds the supply, people looking to buy antique ivory often choose to buy new ivory instead and thus inadvertently encourage poachers to obtain more new ivory.

Answer choice (A): Since neither speaker mentions the issue of satisfactory substitutes for ivory, this answer choice is incorrect. Remember: the correct answer to a Point at Issue question can always be proven by referring to the viewpoints stated in the stimulus.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. Given Roxanne’s conviction that the markets for new and antique ivory are entirely independent, she will likely disagree with this statement. Salvador, on the other hand, asserts that increased demand for antique ivory can drive up the demand for new ivory. Consequently, he is likely to agree with the corollary statement that decreased demand for antique ivory would cause a decrease in demand for new ivory. Since the correct answer to the Point at Issue question will be a statement with which one of the two speakers would agree, and the other – disagree, This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (C): Both speakers are likely to agree with the need to avert a threat to the continued existence of elephant herds.

Answer choice (D): Since neither speaker endorses the purchasing of new ivory, a widespread refusal to buy it will probably be seen as a good thing. Whether such a refusal would have a substantial effect on the survival of elephants is not addressed in either argument.

Answer choice (E): Since neither speaker endorses the purchasing of new ivory, both will agree with the statement that people concerned about endangered species should refuse to buy ivory objects that are less than 75 years old. Salvador and Roxanne disagree over whether antique ivory – that which is at least 75 years old – can be bought in good conscience. This answer choice is incorrect.

[GLMDYP]

Hi!
For No.23, I cannot understand why (B) is the right answer. Actually I don't think any one of the choices could be the right answer. I cannot see "decrease demand for antique ivory" anywhere fit in the stimulus. Roxanne was talking about purchasing antique ivory does not hurt, while Salvador was talking about this is not necessarily true. There does exist a discussion on relationship between antique and new ivory though.
Thanks!

[Lucas Moreau]

Hello, GLMDYP,

First off, you should always remember that - no matter what it looks like - there is always a correct answer choice for an LSAT question.(*)

For question 23, the contest between Roxanne and Salvador mainly hinges on whether the antique ivory market has any effect on the new ivory market, and therefore what should be done about the antique ivory market.

Roxanne insists that antique ivory and new ivory have no market commonality, so no precautions re. antique ivory need to be made. But Salvador counters that, since antique ivory is in limited quantities, people who get their hopes up to purchase antique ivory and then are prevented from doing so might decide to purchase new ivory as a replacement. Therefore, Salvador continues, the sale of even antique ivory should be discouraged, even though it does not directly harm current elephants.

Since their disagreement is about whether the antique ivory market affects the new ivory market, B is the best answer choice.


Hope that helps,
Lucas Moreau
PowerScore

(*) The only exception that springs to mind is questions on the experimental section, which - since they're experimental - may not have as clear-cut a correct answer as finished questions. But since questions on the experimental section don't count, I wouldn't worry too much about it.

[akanshalsat]

Hi, I'm still confused... Is B stated in like a opposite type way? like they would disagree over the fact that an "increase in demand for antique ivory would cause an increase in demand for new ivory" since with that sentence roxanne would disagree bc she thinks buying and wanting antique ivory has no impact on wanting new ivory; and Salvador would agree b/c he thinks that the demand for antique ivory (and thus not getting it bc supplies are less than the high demands) would cause an increase in the demand for new ivory (since ppl would then look forward to buying these if the others are not in supply)

[Adam Tyson]

That's exactly right, akanshalsat, and that is the perfect way to analyze a Point at Issue question like this one! Ask yourself, what would the first speaker say in response to this answer choice? What would the second person say? You want those two answers to be opposites - one would agree and the other would disagree.

Here, with answer B, Roxanne would disagree, because she says buying old ivory will not give an incentive to poachers to get new ivory. That means she thinks there is no point to refraining from buying the old ivory. It won't matter. Salvador agrees with the claim, because that is pretty much what he said - if there is less demand for old ivory, there will be less demand for new ivory, because the people who want the old stuff will have less trouble getting it and be less likely to then get new ivory instead.

Well done!