Unless tiger hunting decreases, tigers will soon be extinct in the wil

E is the answer. It is the only answer that cannot be true in all instances..therefore weakening the stimulus.

[quote="nakib77"]Q38:
Unless tiger hunting decreases, tigers will soon be extinct in the wild. The countries in which the tigers’ habitats are located are currently debating joint legislation that would ban tiger hunting. Thus, if these countries can successfully enforce this legislation, the survival of tigers in the wild will be ensured.
The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument
A. assumes without sufficient warrant that a ban on tiger hunting could be successfully enforced
B. considers the effects of hunting on tigers without also considering the effects of hunting on other endangered animal species
C. fails to take into account how often tiger hunters are unsuccessful in their attempts to kill tigers
D. neglects to consider the results of governmental attempts in the past to limit tiger hunting
E. takes the removal of an impediment to the tigers’ survival as a guarantee of their survival[/quote

E as well. OA pls

E is the best choice. It assumes that as long as there's no tiger hunting, the population of the tigers will benefit. This ignores other human activities that cause the tigers to be extinct, for example, deforestation which destroys the natural habitat of the tigers.

Need explanations. Thanks guys.

E is best. The author believes that the tiger's survival is gauranteed once these countries band together. In other words, the only thing preventing the tiger's survival is the absence of this united front from the governments in question. Once the government carries out its promise, then tigers will escape extinction:

Government action = tigers live
No government action = all tigers die

As you can see, the author's argument is way too simplistic.

Thanks guys, I really appreciate your help. I realize now that all I need to answer the question is look for the assumption. I was looking for thing that was "vulnarable to criticism" in stead.

Thanks Jade3, + 1 from me.

Are the critical reasoning questions in gmat prep on par with the actual gmat?

conclusion does exactly what E states.

nice explanation ... specially for A ..I was confused with A ...
your explanation cleared my doubt on A ... thanks !

Straight E. Not that tough to answer this one, considering that 3 out of 5 choices are out of scope. The only contenders are A and E. E is clearly the winner.

Author claims the if all countries ban hunting then tiger’s will survive.
And we need to provide a counter argument which states that this cannot prevent tiger survival
A ) maybe but no counter argument is there
B ) No
C ) No
D ) no
E ) Yes a counter argument is provided

(A) Incorrect: Paragraph never assumes that the ban will be successfully enforced. It says "IF these countries can successfully enforce the legislation . . ."

(B) Incorrect: The paragraph is not intended to address the problem of other endangered animals. Its argument is that a successful ban on tiger hunting will allow for the survival of tigers. Other endangered animals has nothing to do with this.

(C) Incorrect: Not that strong of an argument against the author's reasoning. Even if tiger hunters aren't that successful, a successful ban on tiger hunting should help the survival of tigers.

(D) Incorrect: Past bans are outside the scope of the argument. We can't assume past bans have any impact on how successful a future ban will be

(E) Correct: The red-flag in the author's original reasoning is that if tiger hunting is banned, then tiger survival is ensured. This assumes that there is nothing else out there that is hurting tiger survival. There's no guarantee that some other factor isn't leading to the endangering of tigers

A: The argument does not assume this : " If these countries can .."
B: Not related.
C :Banning helps the survival of the tiger and this answer is not optimal compared to E.
D: Not related.
E: Correct.

Unless tiger hunting decreases,tigers will soon be extinct in the wild. The countries in which the tiger's habitats are located are currently debating joint legislation that would ban tiger hunting.

thus if these countries can successfully enforce the legislation, the survival of tigers in the wild can be ensured.

The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

1) assumes without sufficient warrant that a ban on tiger hunting could be successfully enforced.--> irrelevant

2)considers the effect of hunting on tigers without also considering the effects of hunting on other edangered animal species.
--> other species OUT OF SCOPE

3)fails to take into account how often tiger hunters are successful in their attempts to kill tigers
-->IRRELEVANT

4)neglects to consider the results of governmental attempts in the past to limit tiger hunting
--> IRRELEVANT

5)takes the removal of an impediment to the tiger's survival as a guarantee of their survival.
--> CORRECT

Unless tiger hunting decreases, tigers will soon be extinct in the wild. The countries in which the tigers’ habitats are located are currently debating joint legislation that would ban tiger hunting. Thus, if these countries can successfully enforce this legislation, the survival of tigers in the wild will be ensured.

Notes
Tigers die from hunting.
Countries in which tigers live are thinking of passing a law that will ban hunting.
Conclusion: tigers will not be extinct

ASU:
Tiger hunters can't find another way around the law.

Tigers won't die from other means such as disease or loss of habitat.

The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument
A. assumes without sufficient warrant that a ban on tiger hunting could be successfully enforced

Wrong: no assumption that ban could be enforced. Even if the ban were enforced, tigers could die from other means.

B. considers the effects of hunting on tigers without also considering the effects of hunting on other endangered animal species

Wrong:
Out of scope, because hunting of other animals is irrelevant

C. fails to take into account how often tiger hunters are unsuccessful in their attempts to kill tigers

Wrong: success of hunters is irrelevant

D. neglects to consider the results of governmental attempts in the past to limit tiger hunting

Wrong:
Past efforts are irrelevant.

E. takes the removal of an impediment to the tiger's survival as a guarantee of their survival
Correct:
Tigers could die from other means. Hunting is just one of those means.

Posted from my mobile device

E would be the right choice.. as the premise stands on the assumption that Only hunting is the sole cause of extinction, which is rather one of the reasons.

E is correct

A. assumes without sufficient warrant that a ban on tiger hunting could be successfully enforced --> No; we're not talking about enforcement here
B. considers the effects of hunting on tigers without also considering the effects of hunting on other endangered animal species --> outside of the scope; we're talking about tigers here
C. fails to take into account how often tiger hunters are unsuccessful in their attempts to kill tigers --> irrelevant
D. neglects to consider the results of governmental attempts in the past to limit tiger hunting --> irrelevant
E. takes the removal of an impediment to the tigers' survival as a guarantee of their survival --> CORRECT