nightblade354 wrote:
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.
The Wildlife Protection Committee's plan assumes that
(A) poachers do not kill rhinos that are worthless to them
(B) hornless rhinos pose less of a threat to humans, including poachers, than do rhinos that have horns
(C) rhinos are the only animals poachers kill for their horns
(D) hornless rhinos can successfully defend their young against nonhuman predators
(E) imposing more stringent penalties on poachers will not decrease the number of rhinos killed by poachers
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