PrepTest 103, Section 3, Question 3
Even though trading in ivory has been outlawed(74 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(8 more words not shown)
- AMost people who(21 more words not shown)
- BThe new synthetic(23 more words not shown)
- COther natural products(19 more words not shown)
- DThe most common(27 more words not shown)
- EIt costs significantly(22 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A substitute that concert pianists actually like sounds promising. If piano makers can stop using real ivory, that could remove one reason to kill elephants.
But how much of the demand came from pianos in the first place? The author says piano makers have never been major ivory consumers. I can see the point: solving a small part of a problem may leave most of the problem in place.
Imagine pianos accounted for only one percent of ivory demand. Eliminating that demand would still leave the other ninety-nine percent. Those numbers are just an illustration, not figures supplied by the passage. They show why a successful piano substitute might produce only a limited reduction in elephant killing.
What we’re looking for
We're asked to strengthen that argument. My first prediction is evidence showing how small the piano industry's share really is. We want support for the claim that this invention will do little to curb the killing, rather than evidence that the substitute is a good product.
Working the answers
- A
Being able to distinguish the new material from inferior substitutes tells us something about people's perception of those products. It doesn't tell us how much demand for natural ivory the new material will remove. The argument concerns the effect on elephant killing, not whether amateur pianists can notice differences between substitutes.
- B
This suggests the material could have uses beyond piano keys. If it can imitate many commercially used kinds of ivory, it might replace more natural ivory than the piano industry's small share. That possibility works against the author's reasoning. B doesn't guarantee buyers will accept the substitute, but it doesn't strengthen the claim of little impact.
- C
The failure of bone or tortoise shell to work in piano keys doesn't show that this newly successful synthetic material will have little effect on elephant killing. We already have a new substitute the pianists like. Comparing it with earlier failed options doesn't establish how much of the natural-ivory market will remain.
- DCorrect
This goes beyond my initial prediction about the size of the piano market. It identifies the most common use of natural ivory and explains why a substitute may not eliminate that demand. Buyers of ornamental carvings value the fact that the material is authentic, as well as the quality of the work.
A synthetic carving could look excellent and still lack the real ivory those buyers prize. So successfully replacing piano-key ivory leaves a major source of demand intact. That gives us a concrete reason to expect only a limited effect on elephant killing.
- E
A cheaper substitute could make switching more attractive. That doesn't support the prediction that the invention will have little effect. E also compares its production cost with earlier substitutes, not with natural ivory, and tells us nothing about how much remaining demand requires authentic tusks.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.