PT102.S3.Q15 > Question

SECTION 1 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 2 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

The argument concludes that a certain near-extinct rhinoceros species could be saved by regularly trimming the horns of all rhinos. How would this help? Because the reason that the species is endangered is because of poachers trading in rhino horns, and trimming the horns would remove the motivation for poaching.

The argument assumes that resolving the cause that initially led to this species becoming endangered would be enough to allow the species’ survival going forward. In other words, the species hasn’t reached a point where even eliminating poaching won’t save it.

The argument also assumes that trimming the rhinos’ horns wouldn’t have unexpected consequences that could further endanger the species, such as making the rhinos more vulnerable to predators or lowering their reproductive rate.

The argument is only concerned with ensuring the survival of this rhino species, so it’s not necessary that other animals will not become endangered.

In order for the rhino species to survive, the members of the species must be able to reproduce. If trimming their horns totally prevented the rhinos from finding mates, they would go extinct even without poachers. That’s why this assumption is necessary.

Ensuring the species’ survival doesn’t require protecting every single member of the species from hunting, so this assumption isn’t necessary.

Whatever happens to the demand for rhino horns is irrelevant, especially given the premise that trimming rhino horns would eliminate the motivation to continue poaching.

Far from being necessary, this assumption would undermine the argument. In fact, it’s the exact opposite of one possible necessary assumption: that rhinos with trimmed horns would be able to defend themselves.

PrepTest 102 - Section 3 - Question 15

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action