rajathpanta wrote:
In the early 20th century,ivory poaching led to near extinction of the black Rhino and the African elephant.As a result, numerous African nations supported a complete ban on all ivory sales. This ban 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 support of the same conversationalists who help impose the 1989 ban on the ivory sales.
Which of the following, if true, contributes most to an explanation of why conversationalists support SA's, Botswana's and Namibia's auction of ivory?
a. The international demand for ivory has decreased since 1989.
b. Most wild elephants and rhinos live outside SA,Botswana and Namibia.
c. Once the tons of confiscated ivory are auctioned, the market will be flooded with ivory making poaching economically impractical.
d. If it were not for the auction, the confiscated ivory could never be used and would have to remain in govt warehouses.
e. Due to major conservation efforts, black rhino and african elephant populations have slowly but steadily increased in the last few years.
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
This type of question is what’s known as Explain the Paradox, a subcategory of Method of Reasoning questions. Something in the conclusion seems diametrically opposed to the evidence presented, and yet it is correct. Generally, some new piece of information in one of the answer choices will reconcile the seemingly opposing viewpoints. Let’s go through the choices and see which solves our dilemma.
Answer choice A indicates that the international demand for ivory has dropped significantly. If this were true, would it help explain why these governments have full support in selling excess ivory (like overstock.com)? Not really. If anything, the demand going down should dissuade anyone from trying to increase the supply of ivory as the price will drop dramatically. There’s no upside to selling ivory in this scenario.
Answer choice B indicates that most of the affected animals live outside of these three countries (although they may be expatriates). Regardless of where the animals are located, the ivory can always be shipped to South Africa or Botswana, so their initial location will not factor into the decision in any way. B is incorrect.
C indicates that flooding the market with ivory will dissuade future poaching, which is a logical and credible line of reasoning that would help reconcile both points made in the original statement. Poachers will not stop their practice just because it’s illegal if there is enough money to be made. If ivory can be freely and cheaply purchased elsewhere, then there is no need to risk legal ramifications by plying a trade that has been banned. C is a perfect solution to our paradox. For competition’s sake, we can look at D and E, although on the actual GMAT you should stop whenever you find the correct answer.
Answer choice D discusses what would happen to the ivory were it not used, inferring that there may be some cost or security concern involved in not selling the ivory. This is out of scope of the question, as selling ivory because upkeep costs are inconvenient would violate the entire purpose of the ivory moratorium. There may be some financial upside in selling the ivory, but it would not explain why the governments would have international support.
Answer choice E is somewhat tempting as it indicates that the rhinos and elephants may no longer be in danger of extinction. Logically, the animals need to be protected when they’re endangered, but when they’re running rampant then the conservation becomes unnecessary. However, had the number of animals climbed dramatically, a more logical reaction would be the removal of the moratorium, not the clandestine sale of some confiscated ivory. Answer choice E does not reconcile the paradox.
close
Updated on: 06 Sep 2017, 07:44
25%
(medium)
22%
(02:02)
wrong 
