PrepTest 113, Section 2, Question 23
Roxanne: To protect declining elephant herds from poachers(110 more words not shown)
A point on which Roxanne's(6 more words not shown)
- Athere are substances(12 more words not shown)
- Bdecreased demand for(11 more words not shown)
- Cpeople should take(12 more words not shown)
- Da widespread refusal(14 more words not shown)
- Epeople concerned about(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What happens to the buyer who wanted an antique after you buy the last one?
Roxanne says buying antique ivory doesn't encourage poaching because the old and new markets are entirely independent. I'd want to examine that claim. Suppose another buyer prefers antique ivory but will settle for new ivory. Taking an antique off the market could leave that buyer turning to the new supply. Our purchase would then affect the new market indirectly.
That's the connection Salvador describes. There isn't enough antique ivory to satisfy the demand, and some buyers who don't share the conservation concern are purchasing new ivory instead. If concerned buyers leave the antiques available, those other buyers have less reason to switch to new ivory.
What we’re looking for
For the disagreement question, my first prediction is whether people concerned about elephants can buy antique ivory in good conscience. Roxanne allows it; Salvador tells them to avoid all ivory. The reason behind that disagreement is whether their antique purchases affect demand for new ivory. We need to track which speaker accepts that connection.
Working the answers
- A
Neither speaker discusses a satisfactory substitute material. Perhaps one exists; perhaps none does. They could still disagree about how the old and new ivory markets interact. We can't assign opposing views on a topic neither addresses.
- BCorrect
Work through the decrease carefully. If conservation-minded buyers stop purchasing antiques, fewer people compete for the limited antique supply. Some buyers who would otherwise turn to new ivory can obtain antiques instead. That is why Salvador thinks withdrawing from the antique market will lower demand for new ivory.
Roxanne denies that connection by calling the markets entirely independent. On her account, changing demand in one market doesn't create the effect in the other that Salvador describes. B expresses the disputed relationship behind their different recommendations.
- C
Both recommendations aim to protect the elephant herds. Their dispute concerns which purchasing decisions serve that aim, not whether concerned people should act to avert the threat. C gives their shared starting point.
- D
Both speakers oppose buying new ivory as a way to help elephants. We aren't given a conflict over the substantial effect of a widespread refusal to buy it. Salvador's additional point is that antique purchases can sustain demand for new ivory indirectly. D leaves out that disputed connection.
- E
Less than 75 years old means the ivory doesn't qualify as antique under Roxanne's definition. She says concerned people should avoid it, and Salvador's refusal to buy any ivory includes avoiding it too. To capture their different recommendations, we'd need to ask about the older ivory that Roxanne permits and Salvador rejects.
More Disagreement questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Disagreement questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.