Q5 - If the ivory trade continues

[rdown2b]

Can someone tell me why the answer is not E

[timmydoeslsat]

Answer choice E basically says this when you rephrase it:

Effective conversation ---> Eliminate poaching

This would not give us a principle to support why Zimbabwe is against the ban of ivory trade.

The reason they are against it is that such a ban would hurt them financially because they depend on income from purposefully killing selected elephants herds that threaten to become too big. They also state that the issue is with other countries not them.

But just because Zimbabwe has those feelings does not justify their objection to the ban. We need something to tie in the idea of how their country being harmed by a policy is a just reason to not do the overall ban.

Because the arguer against Zimbabwe could just as easily say, "I know you feel that way Zimbabwe, but we feel that the most important aspect in our consideration is that we do not want the elephants to become extinct. We know that banning ivory trade is more than likely to work. If something is more than likely to work, we should do it."

So while that is a bit off topic from Zimbabwe' point of view, we need to think in the same kind of terms. What could Zimbabwe say that gives them justification for objecting to this ban that ties in their reasons.

Choice A is the only one that fits.

[maryadkins]

We're told that a total ban in all of Africa on the ivory trade would probably prevent extinction of the elephants. But Zimbabwe opposes this continental ban. We are told:

-Zimbabwe doesn't have poaching now (for the most part)
-Zimbabwe gets income from elephants
-Zimbabwe says other countries' policies are the problem

We are looking for a principle that forms a logical basis for Z's opposition. In other words, if we apply the principle to this set of facts, it justifies Z's decision. (A) says that a multi-country (international) measure should not adversely affect a country that isn't responsible. Z isn't responsible because it's pretty much eliminated poaching, and it will be adversely affected. Ding!

(B) An agreement among nations?
(C) Z doesn't hold that extinction isn't important; it just doesn't think the ivory trade is "where the problem lies." Its issue is with how to solve the problem, not with how big the problem is.
(D) We aren't concerned with who is enforcing anything.
(E) If anything, it seems this would lend more support for the ban. Z says the problem is other countries' conservation policies. If their policies won't work without eliminating poaching, then eliminating poaching should be a priority. The ban, we're told, will probably do it.

[mzm13]

I have a question about principle question, i always do principle question by finding the gap or assumption inside the argument. but in this question, i quickly delete choice A because I cannot find international measure in the context. So my question is: Is my mindset to do principle question is wrong, or anything need to revise?