PrepTest 102, Section 3, Question 15
Because of the lucrative but illegal trade in(40 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(7 more words not shown)
- AMost poachers who(15 more words not shown)
- BAt least some(13 more words not shown)
- CPoachers hunt at(12 more words not shown)
- DThe demand for(20 more words not shown)
- ERhinoceroses whose horns(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Will people stop killing the rhinos just because the horns are gone? Someone might still want a trophy or simply want to hunt a rhino. Removing the horns targets one motive, but we should ask whether that change is enough to protect the species.
There is another concern: what do the rhinos need their horns for?
If removing a horn interferes with something the animal needs to survive, the plan could create a new problem while trying to solve the poaching problem. For example, if a rhino needed its horn to obtain food, taking it away would hardly be a good way to save the species. We do not know that this is true; it is a possibility the argument needs to account for.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for a necessary assumption. Look for something the plan depends on: reducing the incentive to poach must actually help, and trimming every rhino's horns must leave the species able to survive.
Working the answers
- A
We are trying to preserve these rhinos. Whether discouraged poachers start hunting other animals does not determine whether this plan protects the rhino species. That would raise a separate concern, but the argument does not need to assume that most poachers will leave every other horned animal alone.
- BCorrect
If none of the rhinos with trimmed horns could attract mates, trimming every rhino's horns would prevent the species from continuing through reproduction. Stopping poachers would not solve that problem.
This addresses our concern that the horns may serve a function the rhinos need. The answer does not require every trimmed rhino to find a mate. It makes the much smaller claim that at least some can. The plan needs at least that much; the claim by itself does not guarantee the species will survive.
- C
If poachers already hunt some immature rhinos that have no horns, removing horns may not eliminate all their reasons for hunting. That raises our first objection to the plan. It is not a favorable assumption the argument needs.
It also would not automatically prove the entire plan useless. Some remaining poaching and the failure of a species-protection plan are different claims. The important point here is that the argument does not depend on poachers hunting hornless rhinos.
- D
Why must demand remain constant? Demand might decrease, and the plan could still help protect the rhinos. The proposed mechanism is that a trimmed rhino has no horn for a poacher to obtain. Nothing in that reasoning requires this exact prediction about demand after the supply falls.
- E
This would give us a reason to worry about trimming the horns: the rhinos would lose a way to defend themselves. It does not supply an assumption that supports the plan.
Losing that defense would not by itself prove the species must die out; perhaps other protections are available. But the argument certainly does not need the rhinos to become unable to defend themselves. B identifies a capability that at least some rhinos need to retain.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.