LSAT 102 | Section 4 | Logical Reasoning: Q5

LR Question 5 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: If the ivory trade continues, experts believe, the…

QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Sufficient Assumption

CONCLUSION: Zimbabwe thinks they shouldn’t be banned from selling ivory responsibly.

REASONING: The real problem is that other countries don’t have good conservation policies.

ANALYSIS: Zimbabwe has a point, but so do the countries that support a ban. Conservation policies in other countries have failed, so perhaps only a total ban in order to save elephants.

The right answer tells us not to ban ivory, since the ban will hurt Zimbabwe, and Zimbabwe has done nothing wrong.

___________

1. CORRECT. If this is true, then we shouldn’t ban ivory. The ban would hurt Zimbabwe, and Zimbabwe isn’t responsible for ivory poaching.
2. This supports the idea that we can ban ivory trading – free trade isn’t a right.
3. This is tempting, but we’re not told that the ban would restrict Zimbabwe’s sovereignty. Presumably only nations that agree with the ban will sign on. Zimbabwe is free not to sign. Sovereignty doesn’t include the right to force other people to buy from you if they don’t want to.
4. This tells us how to enforce a ban. It doesn’t tell us whether we should impose a ban.
5. Zimbabwe did eliminate poaching. Their argument is that others should do the same, without a total ban on poaching.

Recap: The question begins with “If the ivory trade continues, experts believe, the”. It is a Principle question. Learn how to master LSAT Principle questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.