LR Question 23 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Roxanne: To protect declining elephant herds from…
QUESTION TYPE: Point at Issue
ARGUMENTS: Roxanne argues that buying old ivory won’t increase the demand for new ivory.
Salvador argues that buying old ivory will increase the demand for new ivory. There isn’t enough old ivory, so some people buy new ivory instead.
ANALYSIS: They disagree on whether we should buy antique ivory.
___________
- Neither of them talks about any other substances.
- CORRECT. Roxanne says yes. Salvador says that demand for new ivory would increase.
- Both of them agree we should try and protect elephants. They disagree how we should do so.
- Salvador might think that refusing to buy new ivory would help. But he thinks refusing to buy old ivory would help even more.
- Both of them agree about this. Roxanne thinks we should only buy ivory older than 75 years.
More Resources for Point at Issue Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Point at Issue questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers point at issue questions.
I figured out B, not D, based on a different approach. This seemed to be a trick question.
The discussion is mostly around the central point of “what to buy and why”,
whereas the answer is based on a side note.
—
B is explicitly correct because
– R says “two markets independent” — aka buying old won’t affect new, and vice versa,
– Sal says “they are”
—-
D is the wrong answer not because Salv agrees, but because he doesn’t necessarily disagree.
*I noted concerned people as (c), non concerned people as (nc)
R:
– redirecting (c) demand from new to old –> save elephants from poaching
S:
– no, redirecting (c) demand from new to old –> redirect (nc) demand from old to new –> not necessarily decrease new demand –> not necessarily save elephants from poaching
Okay, so far, D seems correct. so why is it wrong?
First, the word “widespread” is too ambiguous. But, here, it actually refers to ‘concerned people’. Why? because S says NOTHING about what (uc) people should do; S only says what (c) should do.
Ok, then
D says, “(c) people not buying new will make a difference”.
R says, “(c) people not buying new will make a difference” –> exact same as D
S says, “(c) people not buying new won’t make a difference, UNLESS, they don’t buy old as well” –> conditional D.
Here, S doesn’t explicitly disagree nor agree, but states, there is a condition attached. Hence it is not necessarily a disagreement.
—
What I got from this, TLDR;
If person 1 says A –> B,
and person 2 says not (A –> B) unless C,
then it is not a point of disagreement, for the answer MUST be a strict disagreement, no conditions.
Salvador says yes to B.
Thanks for catching that error. Yes, Salvador would agree that decreased demand for antique ivory would decrease the demand for new ivory.
The page will be updated shortly.
Roxanne, says no, disagrees. She states the two markets are “entirely independent”. So decrease in demand for old ivory would have no impact on the new ivory market.
Correct?