Because of the lucrative but illegal trade in rhinoceros horns, a cert

Question

Because of the lucrative but illegal trade in rhinoceros horns, a certain rhinoceros species has been hunted nearly to extinction. Therefore an effective way to ensure the survival of that species would be to periodically trim off the horns of all rhinoceroses, thereby eliminating the motivation for poaching.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?

(A) Most poachers who are discouraged from hunting rhinoceroses are not likely to hunt other animals for their horns.

(B) At lease some rhinoceroses whose horns are periodically trimmed off will be able to attract mates.

(C) Poachers hunt at lease some immature rhinoceroses whose horns have not yet started to develop.

(D) The demand for rhinoceros horns will remain constant even if the supply decreases after the periodical trimming-off of the rhinoceros horns has begun

(E) Rhinoceroses whose horns have been trimmed off are unable to defend themselves against predators.

kyatin · Answer

B by POE.

Reasoning - if they dont assume B then they might worsen the situation if at all horn are used by rhinos for mating calls....I think this goes into assuming too much which is not mentioned in the passage....but assumption has to be hidden anyway.

But am doubtful.

pmenon · Answer

i went for B as well .... survival of species means that reproduction must happen. In order for plan to work, those rhinos have to be able to attract mates.

bkk145 · Answer

B. All of the rest doesn't make much sense. You want an assumption for an argument that if you trim off rhino horns, then the species can survive. B mention that they can attrract mates (and hence reproduce) even if it doesn't have horns.

A, C, D is irrelevant as it doesn't talk about saving the species. 
E actually weakens the argument, and not an assumption.

bsd_lover · Answer

B for me. The only way the species will survive after horns cut off is if the new hornless rhinos can find a mate.

FN · Answer

B for me as well.. we have to ensure the survival of the species..and if they dont mate..well too bad then

garimavyas · Answer

i think it should be B , but where is the OA ? took 1:30 min

amit2k9 · Answer

Interesting question.

B certainly isn't that straight forward to figure out. The focal point is to prevent extinction.
Thats why B fits the bill.

ashkanator · Answer

B is the answer and you can use the negation technique to figure it out.

law258 · Answer

I agree with those above who stated B as the answer

(A) out of the scope
(B) Correct, resolve issue of how trimming horns will ensure rhinos survival as a species
(C) this is support for the opposite argument
(D) suggests that rhinos aren't wanted for just their horns; outside the bounds of the argument presented

Spovil · Answer

A should be the right answer

Conclusion - thereby eliminating the motivation for poaching (or, motivation for poaching  "and not rhinoceros poaching

Premise - Because of the lucrative but illegal trade in rhinoceros horns, a certain rhinoceros species has been hunted nearly to extinction. Therefore an effective way to ensure the survival of that species would be to periodically trim off the horns of all rhinoceroses

Author concludes or make a general statement about motivation.

In making the conclusion, author assumes that the hunters motivation won't exist if the horns of rhinos are trimmed.

Lets analyze B now and take it to extremes.

Extreme-1: None of the rhinoceroses whose horns are periodically trimmed off will be able to attract mates. It has no bearing on the conclusion, which is about motivation

Extreme-2: All of the rhinoceroses whose horns are periodically trimmed off will be able to attract mates.. Again,no bearing on the conclusion

tamanna5 · Answer

I think it's B. But can anyone help me with the right one

KarishmaB · Answer

Responding to a pm:

Premises:
- Trade in rhinoceros horns is lucrative but illegal 
- a certain rhinoceros species has been hunted nearly to extinction.

Conclusion:
Therefore an effective way to ensure the survival of that species would be to periodically trim off the horns of all rhinoceroses, thereby eliminating the motivation for poaching.

The conclusion is that to ensure survival of that species, trim their horns. (So poachers will not poach.) Note that we are targeting survival or the species. What if trimming the horns affects them in another way and endangers the 'survival of the species'? When we conclude that trimming the horns will ensure survival of species, we are assuming that trimming horns doesn't endanger their survival in another way.

(B) At lease some rhinoceroses whose horns are periodically trimmed off will be able to attract mates.
This is correct. We are assuming that the species will survive so trimming horns will not interfere in the mating process.

AbhijitGoswami · Answer

Hi All,

If we add another option for e.g. the number of tourist visiting the national park will remain same.
Then which option would be the best. Sorry for asking such question.
Regards

sayantanc2k · Answer

It would mot change the correct option. The option you have mentioned is not related to the argument:
Premise: poaching has brought the species to near extinction. 
Conclusion: eliminating motivation for poaching would save the animal from extinction.

Whether there is any change in the number of visitors is irrelevant to the above argument.

Nightmare007 · Answer

B- survival is at stake ; trimming helps survival - Assumption to this must help it strengthen the bond -> Even after trimming it is possible for survival. Moreover, other all options are trash.

pra1785 · Answer

Hi karishma,

Can you explain why E is wrong here?

abhimahna · Answer

Hi pra1785 , I am happy to help here

The argument is saying trimming their horns would help us prevent them. How? They will no longer be a source of motivation for hunters. The whole idea lies behind the fact that we need to prevent them from getting extinct. Goal: Prevent them from getting extinct Plan: Let's trim their horns to prevent hunting. Now, I need to show that the plan is a good plan. Or I can say I need to show that hunters will actually not hunt them anymore and thus our purpose will be met. Assumption: There is no side effect of trimming. (E) Rhinoceroses whose horns have been trimmed off are unable to defend themselves against predators It is saying they will not be able to defend themselves against predators. But we are already told that if hunters donot have a source of motivation, they will not hunt the rhinoceroses. Hence, this point is trying to break the premise. Hence, OUT. Remember, breaking a premise is NOT allowed on GMAT. Does that make sense?

TarunKumar1234 · Answer

Because of the lucrative but illegal trade in rhinoceros horns, a certain rhinoceros species has been hunted nearly to extinction. Therefore an effective way to ensure the survival of that species would be to periodically trim off the horns of all rhinoceroses, thereby eliminating the motivation for poaching.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?

(A) Most poachers who are discouraged from hunting rhinoceroses are not likely to hunt other animals for their horns. -> If other animals are being hunted, then how can it is related to the survival of rhinoceros. Irrelevant.

(B) At lease some rhinoceroses whose horns are periodically trimmed off will be able to attract mates. -> It looks off to me at first. Let's think deeper, if some rhinoceroses attract mates, then they won't get extinct. This is the answer, we were looking for. It makes sense. Let's keep it.

(C) Poachers hunt at lease some immature rhinoceroses whose horns have not yet started to develop. -> Irrelevant.

(D) The demand for rhinoceros horns will remain constant even if the supply decreases after the periodical trimming-off of the rhinoceros horns has begun -> demand remains constant doesn't answer how rhinoceroses won't extinct after the periodical trimming-off of horns. Incorrect.

(E) Rhinoceroses whose horns have been trimmed off are unable to defend themselves against predators. -> Then Rhinoceroses will be extinct easily, they won't be able to defend themselves. It is weakening the argument. Incorrect.

So, I think B.

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Because of the lucrative but illegal trade in rhinoceros horns, a cert

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Because of the lucrative but illegal trade in rhinoceros horns, a cert

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards