Since an elephant that has no tusk is worthless to poachers,

Question

Since an elephant that has no tusk is worthless to poachers, the Wildlife Protection Committee plans to protect selected elephants from being killed by poachers by cutting off the elephants’ tusks.

The Wildlife Protection Committee’s plan assumes that

(A) poachers do not kill elephants that are worthless to them

(B) tuskless elephants pose less of a threat to humans, including poachers, than do elephants that have tusks

(C) tuskless elephants can successfully defend their young against nonhuman predators

(D) elephants are the only animals poachers kill for their tusks

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

sher676 · Answer

A. It has to be assumed that poachers will not kill elephants or else the argument falls apart.

hgp2k · Answer

Because the stringent penalty will only decrease the number of elephants killed by poachers, and not stop poachers from killing them. Whereas wild life protection committee wants to protect the elephants from getting killed by poachers. This is the reason committee is planning to cut the tusks of elephants and make them worthless to poachers.

aagar2003 · Answer

in my opinion, a stringent penalty can also be a death penalty too which can mean that proachers will think twice b4 they actually do it.

hgp2k · Answer

Well, we cannot assume anything.

aagar2003 · Answer

By assuming it, I meant to say it is raising doubts and when A is available without any doubt, why would I go with the one I am hesitant.

boeinz · Answer

OA is A. Thanks for your contributions!

atomy · Answer

more stringent penalties on poachers is out of scope and hence E is an incorrect option..

ykaiim · Answer

I think the OA is incorrect.

The is no direct conclusion in the stimulus. So, derived conclusion - committee will cut the tusk of elephant to protect them.

Is there any other way the committee can protect the elephants - Yes:
1. Strict penalties
2. Relocation of elephants
3. Poachers get shot on sight (as someone above mentioned)

We have to find the assumption why they plan to do this. Only A and E match this assumption. Let's check them:

(A) poachers do not kill elephants that are worthless to them.
This is the first premise. Close contender.

(E) imposing more stringent penalties on poachers will not decrease the number of elephants killed by poachers.
I think this should be the OA. If they think that this penalty would not stop them to kill the elephants then they should go ahead with the plan.

hellcheese · Answer

E seems to imply that there are already penalties, which apply to poachers. But there wasn't any mention of penalties in the argument.

Silvers · Answer

Agree with you A it is! E clearly says more stringent penalties, the focus here is more! plus in the conclusion the author is moving towards stopping poachers not reduce the incidents!

nishantarora · Answer

As per the CR Bible, Premise indicator is "Since".

question type "Must be True",pg 49 of bible.( CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG). 
"tusk, worthless, poacher" is what i want to see in an answer choice.

Objective 8 of bible, separate into contender and loser answers.

A seems to be the correct answer.
D seems seems to make no connection
B C are out of scope
E seems to suggest the polar opposite of the objective, i.e. prevent elephant from being killed.

BlueRobin · Answer

Ans is A
because the committee assumes that poachers wont kill elephants without tusks

For E, if the committee assumes that imposing more stringent punishment on pachers will not be effective then the elephants could be moned to another place or the tusks removed so on.

cano · Answer

Since an elephant that has no tusk is worthless to poachers, the Wildlife Protection Committee plans to protect selected elephants from being killed by poachers by cutting off the elephants’ tusks.

The Wildlife Protection Committee’s plan assumes that

(A) poachers do not kill elephants that are worthless to them
(B) tuskless elephants pose less of a threat to humans, including poachers, than do elephants that have tusks
(C) tuskless elephants can successfully defend their young against nonhuman predators
(D) elephants are the only animals poachers kill for their tusks
(E) imposing more stringent penalties on poachers will not decrease the number of elephants killed by poachers

When the question asks you what the assumption is, you have to select an answer choice that if negated, the whole argument or conclusion falls apart.
That happens if you negate A. If poachers kill worthless elephants, then the whole plan of the WPC makes no sense.
You can continue checking other options just to make sure, even though A is quite eloquent.
B, C, and D are not directly related to the subject matter.
E is may confuse you, but is not so strong and clear as A. If more stringent penalties 'decrease' the number of elephants killed, anyways can't be compared to the plan of the WPC of stopping definitely all kills.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Since an elephant that has no tusk is worthless to poachers,

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards