PT102.S4.Q5 > 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

Zimbabwe objects to a total ban on the ivory trade. Zimbabwe insists that poaching isn’t caused by the ivory trade but rather by conservation policies other countries employ—unlike Zimbabwe, these countries haven't managed to eliminate poaching while still participating in the ivory trade.

Even though a ban would likely be effective, Zimbabwe concludes that it shouldn’t be enacted. To come to this conclusion, Zimbabwe must assume that there's a more important consideration at play—for example, that sweeping international measures should not be used when domestic policy can solve a problem, or that the least economically harmful solution should be chosen.

Since Zimbabwe has virtually eliminated poaching, it shouldn’t be negatively affected by a ban against poaching. This is precisely what Zimbabwe argues, and thus forms a logical basis for the argument.

Freedom of trade isn't a part of Zimbabwe's argument; rather, Zimbabwe's support comes from its own success in eliminating poaching. Also, saying that freedom of trade isn't a right would only hurt the argument.

Zimbabwe isn’t arguing that extinction is an acceptable outcome. It’s saying that it has found its own solution to the poaching problem, so it shouldn’t be subject to a ban that will harm its economy.

Zimbabwe's argument isn't concerned with enforcement or developing new agencies. Zimbabwe is saying there shouldn't be a ban in the first place, so enforcement is irrelevant.

The argument doesn't depend on whether poaching is antithetical to conservation, it's about finding a way to eliminate poaching that doesn't harm Zimbabwe's economy. This isn't relevant.

PrepTest 102 - Section 4 - Question 5

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action