LSAT 102 – Section 4 – Question 05

LSAT 102 - Section 4 - Question 05

June 1998

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:26

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT102 S4 Q05
+LR
Strengthen +Streng
Rule-Application +RuleApp
A
85%
166
B
2%
153
C
3%
165
D
1%
161
E
9%
160
131
143
156
 +Medium 146.127 +SubsectionMedium

If the ivory trade continues, experts believe, the elephant will soon become extinct in Africa, because poaching is rife in many areas. A total ban on ivory trading would probably prevent the extinction. However, the country of Zimbabwe—which has virtually eliminated poaching within its borders and which relies on income from carefully culling elephant herds that threaten to become too big—objects to such a ban. Zimbabwe holds that the problem lies not with the ivory trade but with the conservation policies of other countries.

Summarize Argument
Zimbabwe objects to a total ban on the ivory trade. Zimbabwe insists that poaching isn’t caused by the ivory trade, which Zimbabwe participates in, but rather by conservation policies other countries employ.

Notable Assumptions
Zimbabwe assumes that though the ban would remedy the poaching problem, it shouldn’t be enacted since Zimbabwe has solved the poaching problem without such a ban. Zimbabwe therefore believes that bans shouldn’t be enacted in situations where they would provide no benefit, or worse yet damage local economies.

A
International measures to correct a problem should not adversely affect countries that are not responsible for the problem.
Since Zimbabwe has eliminated poaching, it shouldn’t be negatively affected by a ban against poaching. This is precisely what Zimbabwe argues.
B
Freedom of trade is not a right but a consequence of agreements among nations.
We don’t care about freedom of trade. We’re interested in why the ban shouldn’t be enacted.
C
Respecting a country’s sovereignty is more important than preventing the extinction of a species.
Zimbabwe isn’t arguing that it should be able to determine its own laws. It’s saying that it shouldn’t be subject to a ban that will harm its economy while creating no difference in the poaching situation.
D
Prohibitions affecting several countries should be enforced by a supranational agency.
We have no idea who should enforce this ban. Zimbabwe thinks no one should.
E
Effective conservation cannot be achieved without eliminating poaching.
Zimbabwe is arguing about how the ban shouldn’t be enacted. We have no idea if Zimbabwe agrees with this.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 102 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply