LSAT Explanation PT 25, S4, Q5: If the ivory trade continues, experts

LSAT Question Stem

Which one of the following principles forms a logical basis for Zimbabwe's objection to a ban? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Principle question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is A. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

First, let's analyze the passage and identify the structure of the argument. The passage states that if the ivory trade continues, elephants will likely become extinct in Africa due to widespread poaching. A total ban on ivory trading would probably prevent this extinction. However, Zimbabwe, which has almost eradicated poaching within its borders and relies on income from controlled elephant culling, objects to the ban. Zimbabwe argues that the problem is not with the ivory trade but with the conservation policies of other countries.

The argument can be broken down as follows:

Premise 1: A total ban on ivory trading would probably prevent the extinction of elephants in Africa.

Premise 2: Zimbabwe has virtually eliminated poaching and relies on income from controlled elephant culling.

Conclusion: Zimbabwe objects to the ban, arguing that the problem lies with other countries' conservation policies.

The question type for this problem is Principle, which asks us to identify the principle that forms a logical basis for Zimbabwe's objection to the ban. We can also come up with an "Evaluate" question about the argument: "Would the ban adversely affect Zimbabwe, despite its successful conservation policies?"

Now, let's discuss each answer choice:

A) International measures to correct a problem should not adversely affect countries that are not responsible for the problem.

This choice aligns with Zimbabwe's objection to the ban. Since Zimbabwe has virtually eliminated poaching and is not responsible for the problem, a principle stating that international measures should not adversely affect such countries would justify their objection. This is the correct answer.

B) Freedom of trade is not a right but a consequence of agreements among nations.

This choice does not address Zimbabwe's objection to the ban or its successful conservation policies. It merely discusses the nature of trade agreements, which is not relevant to the argument.

C) Respecting a country's sovereignty is more important than preventing the extinction of a species.

This choice does not align with Zimbabwe's stance, as they are not arguing that sovereignty is more important than preventing extinction. Zimbabwe's objection is based on the belief that the problem lies with other countries' conservation policies, not the importance of sovereignty.

D) Prohibitions affecting several countries should be enforced by a supranational agency.

This choice focuses on enforcement, which is not the main concern of Zimbabwe's objection. The argument is about the ban itself and its potential impact on Zimbabwe, not how it would be enforced.

E) Effective conservation cannot be achieved without eliminating poaching.

This choice may seem tempting, but it does not provide a logical basis for Zimbabwe's objection to the ban. In fact, it might support the ban, as eliminating poaching would be a priority if effective conservation cannot be achieved without it. Furthermore, Zimbabwe has already virtually eliminated poaching, so this principle would not justify their objection to the ban.

In summary, the correct answer is A, as it provides a logical basis for Zimbabwe's objection to the ban by stating that international measures should not adversely affect countries that are not responsible for the problem.