PrepTest 113, Section 2, Question 24
Roxanne: To protect declining elephant herds from poachers(110 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- APeople concerned about(20 more words not shown)
- BPeople concerned about(27 more words not shown)
- CPeople concerned about(29 more words not shown)
- DPeople concerned about(27 more words not shown)
- EPeople concerned about(30 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
You can avoid buying new ivory and still affect who buys it.
Imagine someone who wants an antique but doesn't care about protecting elephants. If conservation-minded buyers take the available antiques, that person may turn to new ivory instead. This is why I'm skeptical of Roxanne's claim that the markets are entirely independent. If they really were independent, her argument would make more sense. Salvador gives us a reason to think they aren't.
His recommendation follows that indirect effect: people who care about elephants should leave the antiques available too, so other buyers have less reason to seek newly obtained ivory. I can see why that might help. The concerned buyer isn't personally buying the new ivory, but their decision can influence someone else's purchase.
What we’re looking for
Now we're asked for a principle supporting Salvador's position. His position is about what people should do. I'd look for a rule saying we should avoid actions that indirectly harm a cause we care about, including through their effects on people who don't share our concern.
Working the answers
- A
Spreading information about threats could be one conservation strategy, but Salvador recommends changing purchasing behavior. He doesn't argue that people should educate others. A supports a different action without explaining why concerned people should stop buying antique ivory.
- B
The first part looks helpful: avoid purchases that could harm endangered species. Then the answer adds a condition—only if acceptable substitutes are available. We aren't told those substitutes exist. That leaves us without a rule clearly supporting abstention in the situation described. The problem isn't simply that the answer contains a qualification; it's that the qualification depends on a fact the argument hasn't supplied.
- C
This exempts objects that already existed when the species became endangered. Salvador doesn't offer that exemption. He is concerned that buying an old object can still shift another buyer toward a new one. We also aren't told when elephants became endangered, so we shouldn't assume every antique falls within C's exception. The rule nevertheless introduces an age-based exception that doesn't address his indirect-demand concern.
- D
Whether workers in the ivory trade agree to restrain their participation isn't discussed. Salvador's recommendation to concerned buyers doesn't wait for that agreement. D adds a condition we have no basis to treat as satisfied, instead of giving a reason to follow the proposed boycott.
- ECorrect
This tells concerned people to consider how their actions can reduce the harmful consequences of other people's choices, even when those other people don't share their values.
Apply that to Salvador's account. Some unconcerned buyers switch to new ivory when antiques aren't available. Leaving antiques for them gives us reason to expect less demand for new ivory and less incentive for poaching. E connects that expected benefit with what concerned people should do. Their responsibility isn't limited to avoiding a direct purchase of new ivory; it can include changing their behavior to reduce the indirect harm.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.