#18 - The television documentary went beyond the save-the

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen. The correct answer choice is (A)

In this Strengthen question we are be asked to supply what appears to be the intended conclusion of the stimulus. The argument proceeds by pointing out that the documentary “went beyond the save-the-wildlife pieties” and shows how elephants actually harm human farmers. There does not seem to be any suggestion or advice on how to remedy this problem. The stimulus just seems to be focused on calling attention to the problem. The correct answer choice will represent what the example is meant to illustrate.

Answer Choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. (A) neatly captures the message in the stimulus. The preservation of elephants has actually threatened the welfare of farmers in East Africa since they eat their crops.

Answer Choice (B): Nowhere in the stimulus did it actually suggest to remove elephants from the endangered species list. Although the elephants are a pest it does not mean their numbers are so great they are no longer endangered, nor does it mean that farmers should be allowed to kill off elephants.

Answer Choice (C): This is obviously wrong since the very first sentence pointed out that this documentary “went beyond” the normal pieties.

Answer Choice (D): Like in (B) we are given no indication or suggestion that elephant populations should be controlled, let alone how they should be controlled.

Answer Choice (E): It is probably unfair that people in some countries have to endure food shortages, but that is not the main point of the stimulus. The stimulus is centered around elephants and how they endanger farmers; food shortages are merely implied as an effect of this.

[Shedrickc]

This type of question/answer is the type that I fear most.

I actually did not see where The argument proceeds by pointing out that the documentary “went beyond the save-the-wildlife pieties” and shows how elephants actually harm human farmers. I read how the "farms" were harmed and of course there's the potential to harm the farmers, but it appears that would require a logical jump. The only thing in answer choice A that appears to tie back to the stimulus is " the preservation of wildlife" Is there another way to view this type of question to guarantee I can find the correct answer. I'm still not sure I'd get a question like this one right if it appeared again.

[Malila Robinson]

Hi Shedrickc,
In Strengthen questions you can bring in information that has not yet been discussed in the argument as long as it helps/strengthens the argument. In this case, if a farmers crops are harmed by being eaten it is not too much of a jump to say that the farmer will be harmed (economically) by this loss of crops, and it properly sums up the essence of the argument. That leads to A as the correct answer.
Hope that helps!
-Malila

[Shedrickc]

thanks. I was looking for the main point ? It was in Main Point TT questions section of my book

[James Finch]

Hi Shedrick,

This is a Main Point-Fill in the Blank question, asking you to infer (or more precisely, what is most likely inferred) from the set of premises given in the stimulus. This is a MP variation, requiring you to fill-in-the-blank in the stimulus itself, rather than as complete sentence given in the answer choices; regardless, the actual process of selecting the correct answer choice is the same. We need to put all the premises together and come up with what is most likely to be true based on the information they provide. Here, that is that elephants and human farmers are in conflict in African countries that have food shortages, making eating there a zero sum game where an elephant's meal takes food away from a human being. Kind of a clunky Prephrase, but the idea is what counts.

(A) correctly identifies this fundamental conflict, and is the correct answer.

Hope this helps!