A. T
he cheetah poaching problem in South Africa is similar in nature to the tiger poaching problem in India.>The argument applies a solution from one case to another, so it assumes the two situations are sufficiently similar. (assumed)
B. The reduction in economic benefits of animal poaching has not contributed to the reduction in tiger poaching in India.>If some other factor caused the slowdown instead of the law, the argument weakens. It assumes the law was the cause. (assumed)
C. Tiger populations were accurately reported before and after the law was implemented in India.>The claim that the decline slowed depends on reliable population data. (assumed)
D. Poaching is the sole cause of the decline of the population of tigers as well as cheetahs.>The argument only needs poaching to be a significant cause that can be reduced by law, not the only cause of population decline.
Other factors may also exist.
(not assumed)E. Citizens of India and South Africa are similar in terms of abiding by the law.>If enforcement response differs greatly, the same law may not have similar results.
(assumed)Correct Answer: DExpertsGlobal5
Since tiger poaching was made a criminal offence in India, the decline in India’s tiger population has rapidly slowed down. Clearly, similar law should be implemented to counter cheetah poaching in South Africa.
Each of the following is an assumption made in the argument above EXCEPT:
A) The cheetah poaching problem in South Africa is similar in nature to the tiger poaching problem in India.
B) The reduction in economic benefits of animal poaching has not contributed to the reduction in tiger poaching in India.
C) Tiger populations were accurately reported before and after the law was implemented in India.
D) Poaching is the sole cause of the decline of the population of tigers as well as cheetahs.
E) Citizens of India and South Africa are similar in terms of abiding by the law.
|
This Daily Butler Question was provided by
Experts' Global
|
|
Sponsored
|
|
|