In the early 20th century, ivory poaching led to the near

chetan2u
Can you please explain this one why C i feel B is a better answer.

I choose D
Conclusion: numerous African nations supported a complete ban on all ivory sales that has been in effect since 1989

The governments of South Africa, Botswana, and Namibia have recently put up for auction thousands of tons of confiscated ivory horns and tusks --> this is a premise against the ban.
The three governments have the full support of the same conservationists who helped impose the 1989 international ban on ivory sales, because once this ivory is auctioned --> this helps to explains why this is not against the ban

only D state both premises.

anyone has OE?

Any OE for this question? I would like to know why B is incorrect and how is "the three governments have the full support of the same conservationists who helped impose the 1989 international ban on ivory sales, because once this ivory is auctioned" the conclusion. I thought the conclusion was "numerous African nations supported a complete ban on all ivory sales that has been in effect since 1989" and "the market will be flooded and poaching will be economically impractical"

OE from Veritas Prep:

As in any boldface CR problem, you should first read all elements of the argument to understand it generally and then hone in on the boldfaced portions. In this argument, the first two sentences simply provide context for what follows. You learn poaching nearly led to the extinction of the rhino and elephant, and as a result numerous nations supported a ban. The first boldfaced portion then supplies an unexpected fact after learning the context before: several major African nations are selling confiscated ivory in spite of the continued moratorium. Even more surprisingly, you then learn in the second boldfaced portion that those countries have the support of the conservationists who helped impose the ban in the first place. The last part of the argument provides an explanation (i.e. a premise) for why the three governments have that support.

So initially you should realize that the first boldfaced portion is a fact and the second portion is the conclusion. By asking “Why?” to the conclusion you see that the last section following “because” is the support for the conclusion. Given this you should then dissect each answer choice:

(A) The first boldfaced portion does not support the conclusion – rather it seems to undermine it so this description is incorrect. The second boldfaced portion is indeed the conclusion but the first portion of the answer choice makes it incorrect.

(B) In this answer choice you should start with the second description, as it is clearly wrong. The second does not provide support for anything – rather it is the conclusion that is supported by what follows.

(C) Correct. The first boldfaced portion is indeed a fact that seems completely contradictory to the conclusion. If these governments are selling ivory in spite of a moratorium, then why would they have the support of the conservationists? The second is the conclusion.

(D)/(E) These answers, like (B), improperly describes the second portion as a premise so are incorrect.

In the early 20th century, ivory poaching led to the near extinction of the black rhino and the African elephant. As a result, numerous African nations supported a complete ban on all ivory sales that has been in effect since 1989. The governments of South Africa, Botswana, and Namibia have recently put up for auction thousands of tons of confiscated ivory horns and tusks, in spite of the continued moratorium. However, the three governments have the full support of the same conservationists who helped impose the 1989 international ban on ivory sales, because once this ivory is auctioned, the market will be flooded and poaching will be economically impractical.

This is why I hate Kaplan. If the underlined portion were in bold, then the second portion would be the conclusion. As it stands, the second sentence is not a conclusion: the three governments have the full support of the same conservationists who helped impose the 1989 international ban on ivory sales, because once this ivory is auctioned -- Once this ivory is auctioned off, what? There is no conclusion here, just a statement of intention. The OA should be updated to B, as B is the clear winner. B provides support for the first bold faced portion, which is a truth that needs explaining.

broall, do you agree or disagree?

In the case in which the author does not have his/her own opinion (such as the question above), how do I find the conclusion?
I usually ask myself "what is the final takeaway of the author?", but here there is no "author´s explicit voice"

Thanks!

Hi giuliab3,

This is a poor question, so don't fret too much about it. But, if you are having trouble finding the conclusion, look for the following words as signal words:
Thus
Therefore
Hence
Consequently (“ly”)
As a result
So, If
Accordingly
Clearly
Must Be
Shows(is a action word) that
Conclude (is a action word) that
Follows that
For this reason


For premises:
Because
Since
For
For example
for the reason that
in that
given that
as indicated by
due to
owing to
this can be seen from
we know

I selected C, but I am still not so very convinced how the second BF is a conclusion as for me it just seems to be a premise, which seems to support the conclusion 'the market will be flooded and poaching will be economically impractical'

I eliminated A, B, D and E based on their first part of the answer, and was left with C.

Although i try not to criticize the source or question type much and try learn whatever i can from each question type, i agree with nighblade354 on this one.

Not a good question.

In the early 20th century, ivory poaching led to the near extinction of the black rhino and the African elephant. As a result, numerous African nations supported a complete ban on all ivory sales that has been in effect since 1989. The governments of South Africa, Botswana, and Namibia have recently put up for auction thousands of tons of confiscated ivory horns and tusks, in spite of the continued moratorium. However, the three governments have the full support of the same conservationists who helped impose the 1989 international ban on ivory sales, because once this ivory is auctioned, the market will be flooded and poaching will be economically impractical.

The portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A.The first is support for the unexpected conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.
B.The first is a truth that the argument seeks to explain; the second provides support for that explanation.
C.The first is a fact that appears contradictory to the conclusion; the second is that conclusion.
D.The first is a premise that contradicts the conclusion; the second is a premise that supports the conclusion
E.The first is a conclusion that the argue seeks to explain; the second is a premise that supports that explanation.

I am not convinced at all how the second boldface acts as a conclusion. It just seems like an after thought, after knowing OA someone has just conjured up the logic. The explanation is very very difficult to accept.

Hello Experts,

Could you explain how Second BF is conclusion ?

Regards,
Amm

There is no conclusion to this argument.

In the early 20th century, ivory poaching led to the near extinction of the black rhino and the African elephant. - Background details.

As a result, numerous African nations supported a complete ban on all ivory sales that has been in effect since 1989. - Background details.

The governments of South Africa, Botswana, and Namibia have recently put up for auction thousands of tons of confiscated ivory horns and tusks, in spite of the continued moratorium. - An action that the argument is going to explain.

However, the three governments have the full support of the same conservationists who helped impose the 1989 international ban on ivory sales, because once this ivory is auctioned, the market will be flooded and poaching will be economically impractical. - The explanation.

I guess the question makers should try to solve the question they provide to the students and then forward it in circulation.
Had me doubting my ability. Moderators nightblade354 GMATNinja please remove this .....( too much anger)

I guessed the second bold face as a conclusion because I thought anything that comes after "however" ,"therefore", "hence" is a conclusion. giuliab3

This seems to be an attempt at a rewrite of a real Veritas question that was not in Role (boldface) form: https://gmatclub.com/forum/in-the-early ... 45611.html

For those wanting to write their own questions, don't start with Role. They are really hard to write correctly!

Completely agree with above..
What has been stated in the second bold statement is just a fact and not a conclusion.
So C is incorrect considering its explanations of second statement.