Since a rhinoceros that has no horn is worthless to poachers, the Wild

Conclusion: protection of rhinos by cutting horn... in other words...protection =rhinos without horn
premise: no horn means worthless to poachers i.e no horn= worthless

GAP: Is worthless = protection??

This is what option A tries to say

Please give kudos if you like the post

Since a rhinoceros that has no horn is worthless to poachers, the Wildlife Protection Committee plans to protect selected rhinoceroses from being killed by poachers by cutting off the rhinos' horns.

Premise - a rhinoceros that has no horn is worthless to poachers,
Conclusion - the WPC plans to protect selected rhinoceroses from getting killed by poachers by cutting off the rhinos' horns.


The Wildlife Protection Committee's plan assumes that

(A) poachers do not kill rhinos that are worthless to them - CORRECT, if we negate this it will falsify our conclusion of protecting rhino from getting killed by poachers
(B) hornless rhinos pose less of a threat to humans, including poachers, than do rhinos that have horns - IRRELEVANT, posing more or less threat is not the context
(C) rhinos are the only animals poachers kill for their horns - OUT OF SCOPE, Other Animals are not relevant
(D) hornless rhinos can successfully defend their young against nonhuman predators - IRRELEVANT whether hornless rhinos can defend themselves or not is out of context
(E) imposing more stringent penalties on poachers will not decrease the number of rhinos killed by poachers - OUT OF SCOPE, imposing penalties on poachers is nowhere mentioned in the passage

Kindly give kudos if my explanation helped

(A) poachers do not kill rhinos that are worthless to them - Correct
(B) hornless rhinos pose less of a threat to humans, including poachers, than do rhinos that have horns - Irrelevant Comparison
(C) rhinos are the only animals poachers kill for their horns - Extreme choice: "only".
(D) hornless rhinos can successfully defend their young against nonhuman predators - Out of Scope
(E) imposing more stringent penalties on poachers will not decrease the number of rhinos killed by poachers - Out of Scope

for this assumption type ; simply negate the option
IMO A; is correct
poachers do kill rhinos that are worthless to them ; breaks the conclusion ; Since a rhinoceros that has no horn is worthless to poachers

Argument means to say that if a rhino is without horn it is worthless and poachers are not interested in killing a worthless rhino. If that's true then WPC's plan would be successful in protecting the rhinos.

Only A is related to what above context hence correct, besides negating it makes argument fail.

[/quote]

why not D??? my reasoning was if they can not defend themself from nonhuman predators then they are going to die evenually. hor helps them to survive... please help???

AbhishekDhanraJ72 the question don't talk about the scope, what will happen to rhinos when their horns are been detached from body. But is asking proof to testify the plan of the wildlife protection committee to save rhinos from poachers is legit or not. Let say the rhinos are still hunted for their skin or any other by product, the whole process of saving rhinos by removing their horns will be futile. so the passage is testifying that the hornless rhinos are useless for poachers and hence will not be hunted so as stated in first option.

VeritasKarishma - I got stuck between A and E, but finally selected A. However, I am looking for strong reasons for rejecting option E. Pls review my analysis and share your thoughts and reason for rejecting option E.

Poachers are killing rhinoceros for horns so WPC plans to remove horns so that no rhinoceros will be killed.

Negation of option E is imposing more stringent penalties on poachers will decrease the number of rhinos killed by poachers.

as the no. of rhinos will be decreased but it will not be zeros; whereas, the no. of rhinos killed if horns are removed will be zero; hence, option A is more apt than option E.

Pls review and share your reasons for rejecting option E.

Plan: Cut off the horns
Aim: Poachers will not kill rhinos.

- a rhinoceros that has no horn is worthless to poachers


The plan is to cut off the horns. We know that a rhino with no horn is worthless to poachers.
Then we are concluding that poachers will not kill rhinos.

How are we linking "worthless" to "not kill"?
We are assuming that poachers will not kill what is worthless to them.

Hence (A) is correct.

(E) imposing more stringent penalties on poachers will not decrease the number of rhinos killed by poachers

Irrelevant. Whether another plan (penalties) will work or not work is irrelevant to our argument. We have to see what will make our plan work. Whether there are other plans that may also work or not doesn't impact the success of this plan. All we are concerned with is the success of our plan.
It doesn't matter whether our plan with work 100% and another will work 90%. We need to find something that tells us whether our plan will work or not. All other possible plans are irrelevant.
PanpaliaAnshul

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.