anshsaurabh wrote:
carouselambra wrote:
IMO A
Government efforts to curb the poaching of elephants primarily for their ivory tusks was a success in 2005. If the efforts had not been successful, the price of domestically produced ivory goods would not have increased significantly in 2005, since the producers of ivory products do not mind buying ivory from any and all available sources within the country.
The argument in the passage would be most seriously weakens if it were true that
Cause : Govt. efforts to curb poaching
Effect : Success - price of domestically produced ivory goods increased
Carefully note the assumptions/implicit facts :
1. Prices were low earlier
2. #1 might have been the result of widely available ivory goods (as stated)
3. People selling ivory were actually affected, i.e. they did not find an alternative to poach and yet sell the ivory elsewhere
To weaken :
1. Find an answer inline with the pre-thinking done above
2. For cause and effect questions (weaken), prove the involvement of a third factor
3. Prove that the effect did not actually happen
a) Poachers started getting a significantly better bargain abroad for their ivory in and around 2005.
Correct- In line with highlighted thoughts.
b) The demand for ivory products, primarily decorative items, suddenly shot up in 2005 following a countrywide fashion trend.
Not a part of the passage as a whole
c) In 2005, independent poachers joined forces to form substantially bigger groups which could face increased government vigilance.
Out of scope/not related to the conclusion/does not weaken
d) In 2005, poachers identified an unique and untraceable technique of hunting elephants
Interesting but we do not know whether this was a success. Nothing mentioned around the sale of ivory products.
e) The producers of ivory products are always ready to pay exorbitant prices for raw ivory since they know that they can recover their money
Acceptable fact but what if the raw ivory was not available at all?
Also, this is unrelated to the conclusion.
Can you please explain why you eliminated option B ?
Option B talks about the increased demand for IVORY PRODUCTS, PRIMARILY DECORATIVE ITEMS, and the argument mentions that the price of DOMESTICALLY PRODUCED IVORY PRODUCTS increased significantly. Aren't the two same ?
Option B also weakens the argument by giving an alternate reason for the SIGNIFICANT price increase. Also, since DECORATIVE ITEMS are not part of the stimulus doesn't mean it cannot be a correct answer choice, according to CR BIBLE book.
I am still confused b/w A & B.
Hi
anshsaurabhLet's go through option B.
I am marking some keywords in the question stem first.
Government efforts to
curb the poaching of elephants primarily for their ivory tusks was a success in 2005. If the efforts had not been successful, the price of
domestically produced ivory goods would
not have
increased significantly in 2005, since the
producers of ivory products do not mind buying ivory from any and
all available sources within the country.
Now, coming to your thoughts.
Option B talks about the increased demand for IVORY PRODUCTS, PRIMARILY DECORATIVE ITEMS, and the argument mentions that the price of DOMESTICALLY PRODUCED IVORY PRODUCTS increased significantly. Aren't the two same ?No, they are not the same.
Example : I might produce ivory domestically but choose not to display. It is our assumption/imagination that ivory products are used for decoration.
But they are not just limited to decoration per se. They can be used for other purpose not mentioned in the passage.
Option B also weakens the argument by giving an alternate reason for the SIGNIFICANT price increase. Also, since DECORATIVE ITEMS are not part of the stimulus doesn't mean it cannot be a correct answer choiceThe biggest flaw in the thought process here is that option (B) is
NOT weakening the conclusion. I can delve into the details but would really appreciate if you share the conclusion with me and then we can take this further
close
16 May 2021, 08:05
59%
(02:09)
wrong 
