If the ivory trade continues, experts believe, the elephant will soon

Hey Experts

Any advice, why A is correct.

Frankly, the options were very difficult for me to interpret wrt. passage.

Please can you clarify the option A and how it strengthens the passage.

Thanks
Abhinav

The options are too difficult to relate with the passage. By POE I got to the answer, but couldn't find a reason to nail down the correct answer

Key takeaways from the passage:
1. Experts - A total ban on poaching Elephants needs to be brought in to prevent extinction of the species
2. The govt. of Zimbabwe has eliminated all illegal poaching but at the same time it needs to control the overall Elephant population relative to the forest area available because Elephants damage vegetation, destroy crops and attack surrounding human settlements when they become too many in numbers. These are just some examples I put in to elaborate the author's view on elephant herds that threaten to become too big
3. The govt. of Zimbabwe does not support this total ban because this ban will also mean that Zimbabwe can no longer take actions to prevent Elephant populations and in turn will have to face the losses resulting from the over crowding of Elephants. In other words now that Zimbabwe has eliminated all illegal poaching and is no longer responsible for the extinction, it should not be further impacted by the policies

(A) International measures to correct a problem should not adversely affect countries that are not responsible for the problem
This is in line with what we inferred and is the correct answer

(E) Effective conservation cannot be achieved without eliminating poaching
Ask the question - Does this form of the basis of Zimbabwe's opposition to total ban? No, in fact the passage mentions that Zimbabwe has already taken steps to ban on illegal poaching. Zimbabwe has problems with the total ban policy that will prevent it from controlling over crowding of Elephants

Options B, C and D are relatively simple to eliminate if you ask the question - does Zimbabwe use this point to oppose the total ban?

(B) Freedom of trade is not a right but a consequence of agreements among nations
Zimbabwe's opposition to trade no where brings in freedom of trade as a point and this is a general statement that has nothing to do with the passage in hand

(C) Respecting a country’s sovereignty is more important than preventing the extinction of a species
Might be true in real life but does Zimbabwe use this as a reason to oppose the total ban? - No

(D) Prohibitions affecting several countries should be enforced by a supranational agency
Again, might be true in real life but does Zimbabwe use this as a reason to oppose the total ban? - No

Ans - A

Thank you Hesham123 for an explanation.

Hi,

I am still having a hard time understanding how the total ban on the ivory trade would negatively impact Zimbabwe financially.
How is the ban on the ivory trade related to not being able to cull elephant herds which is a source of their income?
To me, the stimulus doesn't seem to even imply that Zimbabwe does ivory trading either. Even if it does, how can we be sure that it does?