unless tiger hunting decreases

[jackm639]

Unless tiger hunting decreases, tigers will soon be extinct in the wild. The countries in which the tigers' habitats are located are currently debating joint legislation that would ban tiger hunting. Thus, if these countries can successfully enforce this legislation, the survival of tigers in the wild will be ensured.

The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

A assumes without sufficient warrant that a ban on tiger hunting could be successfully enforced
B considers the effects of hunting on tigers without also considering the effects of hunting on other endangered animal species
C fails to take into account how often tiger hunters are unsuccessful in their attempts to kill tigers
D neglects to consider the results of governmental attempts in the past to limit tiger hunting
E takes the removal of an impediment to the tigers' survival as a guarantee of their survival

hello everyone, I think I can easily eliminate the choice B and C, but I am not sure which one should be correct of A D E, could you give me a help, thank you!

[RonPurewal]

hi,
is this problem from the FREE gmat prep software?

if so, please provide a screen shot.

apologies for any inconvenience, but it would be quite surprising to find a problem from the FREE software that doesn't already have a thread on this forum. (all of the problems in the free software have been around for many years.)

thanks.

[er.anjali]

Yes this problem is from GMAT Prep software

[RonPurewal]

as requested, we need to see a screen shot, to make sure it isn't from one of the paid "packs" in the software. thank you.

[chetan86]

Hi Ron,

This question is from free GMAT prep.
Could you please explain why E is correct?

Thanks,
Chetan

[RonPurewal]

well, choice E says exactly what the argument does!

the "impediment to the tigers' survival" is the hunting that's happening right now.

the argument says "if we take that away, then the tigers' survival will be ensured" -- in other words, the argument actually tries to guarantee that the tigers would survive if this single issue were neutralized.
(that's a flaw because the tigers could still be in danger for plenty of other possible reasons.)

[khoad93]

Dear instructors,

When solving this question, I considered between answers (C) and (E). And then, I saw that (E) is stronger as this answer talks about the possibility that the argument does not consider other factors that can have an impact on the survival of tigers. It is clear to me.

But let's consider the approximate question in the following linkage: https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... t5594.html
The answer is (C) because it shows that there may be the case that park rangers use tranquilizers for other purposes. Then getting frequent recollared is not the same as getting tranquilizers. The argument is then vulnerable to that fact.

I am feeling a little bit vague here when I considered the answer (C) in the subject "tiger hunting decreases". In this case, there may be other causes that also do harm to tiger survival that the argument fails to consider.

quote/unquote: (C) fails to take into account how often tiger hunters are unsuccessful in their attempts to kill tigers

It is a bit obscure for me to understand. Is there any flaw in my logic? Can you please explain that to me?
Thank you!

[esledge]

Dear instructors,

When solving this question, I considered between answers (C) and (E). And then, I saw that (E) is stronger as this answer talks about the possibility that the argument does not consider other factors that can have an impact on the survival of tigers. It is clear to me.

On this question, (C) is wrong because how often tigers aren't killed by hunters is irrelevant; it is only relevant how often hunters do kill tigers. The conclusion is "if these countries can successfully enforce this legislation [that would ban tiger hunting], the survival of tigers in the wild will be ensured." Survival of not getting killed is ... redundant.

Good job seeing how (E) was more relevant and making the correct choice.

But let's consider the approximate question in the following linkage: https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... t5594.html
The answer is (C) because it shows that there may be the case that park rangers use tranquilizers for other purposes. Then getting frequent recollared is not the same as getting tranquilizers. The argument is then vulnerable to that fact.

I am feeling a little bit vague here when I considered the answer (C) in the subject "tiger hunting decreases". In this case, there may be other causes that also do harm to tiger survival that the argument fails to consider.

quote/unquote: (C) fails to take into account how often tiger hunters are unsuccessful in their attempts to kill tigers

It is a bit obscure for me to understand. Is there any flaw in my logic? Can you please explain that to me?
Thank you!

I think the only flaw in your logic is that you are expecting correct answers on different types of CR questions to match. The linked rhinoceros question (which is Evaluate) and this thread's tiger question (which is Weaken) are similar but different types, so their correct answers have to fulfill slightly different roles. It also depends what premises you have in the argument. These two arguments aren't exactly analogous:

The rhino argument is longer and focuses more on what some observed facts and correlations mean. Rhino question (C) suggests a relevant fact that the given argument failed to consider: frequency at which rhinos get a dose of tranquilizer for non-collaring reasons. This directly affects how well the last sentence of the argument can be drawn from the second-to-last sentence.

The tiger argument is shorter and more direct: Decrease hunting or tigers will soon be extinct. Some countries are considering a hunting ban, and if successfully enforced, tiger survival will be ensured. (Paraphrase)

As you noted, the best way to weaken is to attack the strongest word (ensured) in the conclusion. If the given argument had included more/different premises, and/or the conclusion were not so strongly worded, the correct answer might have been something else entirely.