Self-study
The television documentary went beyond the save-the-wildlife pieties of some of those remote from East Africa and showed that in a country pressed for food, the elephant is a pest, and an intelligent pest at that. █████ ███████ ██ ██ ██ ███ ██ ███████ ████ ███████ █████ ████ ███ █████████ ████████ ██ █████████████ ████████ ██████ ███████ ████ ███████ ███████████ ████ ████████
Stimulus Summary
The stimulus describes a TV documentary that doesn't adhere to "save-the-wildlife pieties" and instead shows how elephants can be "pests" in a country struggling for food. The author notes that there is no way to protect East African farms from elephant foraging, and points to this situation as an "example," presumably of some larger claim which we need to fill in.
Pre-Phrasing: Fill in the Blank
Since the last sentence is using the situation with these elephants as an "example" or "illustration," we can expect that we'll be filling in the blank with a more general claim, not a highly specific one. We can guess what that claim might involve just from the tone of the argument so far, which has been very negative both about the elephants' behavior and about "save-the-wildlife pieties" — i.e., beliefs held by "some" whom the argument dismisses as "remote from East Africa." So it wouldn't be surprising if the sentence ended by talking about how conservation policies informed by people unaware of the actual, on-the-ground situation can backfire, or something like that.
18.
Which one of the following ████ █████████ █████████ ███ ██████████
a
the preservation of ████████ ███ ████████ █████ ███████
Correct. This is even more general than what we pre-phrased, but it is certainly supported by the example of the elephants foraging from farms in East Africa, and is consistent with the negative tone of the argument.
b
it is time ██ ██████ █████████ ████ ███ ████ ██ ██████████ ███████
Incorrect. (B) doesn't follow. The author never talks about elephants' status as endangered, or suggests, for instance, that the reason they are so destructive is that there are too many of them.
c
television documentaries are █████████ ██ █████ ████ ████ ███████████ ████████ ███████
Incorrect. This is actually contrary to what the author says, since he points to one television documentary that does go "beyond" the usual "pieties."
d
farmers and agricultural ██████ ██████ ████ ███████ ████ ████████ ████████████████ ██████ ██████ ████████ ██ ███████ █████████
Incorrect. (D) is closely related to the specific situation described in the stimulus, but we're looking for a more general statement that is supported by that situation as an illustrative example. And nothing in the stimulus so far leads us to expect a conclusion about who should be involved in measures to control elephants; in fact, the argument suggests there isn't an effective way to control elephants.
e
it is unfair ████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ██████ ████ ██ ██████ ████ █████████
Incorrect. While the argument could relate to "food shortages," it specifically talks about the relationship between wildlife and human food sources in countries that are struggling for food. We would expect the conclusion to mention the role of elephants or of wildlife conservation, say, in food shortages, but (E) doesn't do this. So (E) doesn't follow from the stimulus.