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.
boeinz
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