PrepTest 102, Section 4, Question 5
If the ivory trade continues, experts believe, the(76 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(11 more words not shown)
- AInternational measures to(15 more words not shown)
- BFreedom of trade(11 more words not shown)
- CRespecting a country's(11 more words not shown)
- DProhibitions affecting several(8 more words not shown)
- EEffective conservation cannot(5 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Would banning the trade actually stop the poaching? Someone might keep selling ivory secretly. That is my first question about the proposed solution, although the passage says a total ban would probably prevent extinction.
Zimbabwe raises a different objection. It has virtually eliminated poaching, earns money from carefully reducing herds that are becoming too large, and would lose that income under a ban. Its position is essentially: we have controlled the problem within our borders, so why should failures elsewhere stop our trade?
I can understand that complaint without deciding it settles the policy. For instance, could poachers pass off illegal ivory as coming from a permitted source? We aren't told whether that would happen or how easily it could be prevented. It's another practical question, separate from Zimbabwe's stated reason for objecting.
What we’re looking for
The principle question asks us to support Zimbabwe's reasoning, not resolve all those concerns. I'd look for a rule about responsibility: countries that aren't causing the problem shouldn't have to bear the cost of the international solution. That connects Zimbabwe's claimed success at controlling poaching with its objection to losing its ivory income.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The proposed ban is an international measure to address a problem. Zimbabwe says that other countries' conservation policies cause the problem and that Zimbabwe has controlled poaching at home. The ban would still harm its income. A connects those points: a country not responsible for the problem shouldn't be adversely affected by the measure intended to solve it. This supplies the fairness principle behind Zimbabwe's objection.
- B
Whether freedom of trade is a right or the product of agreements doesn't establish that Zimbabwe should be exempt from this ban or that the ban should be rejected. Nations could agree to restrict trade. We need a reason supporting Zimbabwe's particular objection, not merely an account of where trading freedom comes from.
- C
This ranks national sovereignty above preventing extinction. Zimbabwe's stated reasoning doesn't make that comparison. It argues that the problem comes from other countries' policies, while its own conservation practices work. C would substitute a different reason for rejecting the ban instead of connecting the reason Zimbabwe actually gives.
- D
This concerns who should enforce a multinational prohibition. Such an agency could enforce the very ivory ban Zimbabwe opposes. Assigning enforcement responsibility doesn't support the objection to imposing the restriction in the first place.
- E
Even if effective conservation requires eliminating poaching, that doesn't settle whether the ivory trade should be banned. We would still need to decide how to address poaching and whether the same restriction should burden countries with different records. A addresses Zimbabwe's claim that it shouldn't pay for a problem it says it hasn't caused.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.