Government efforts to curb the poaching of elephants primarily for the

Question

Government efforts to curb the poaching of elephants primarily for their ivory tusks was a success in 2005. If the efforts had not been successful, the price of domestically produced ivory goods would not have increased significantly in 2005, since the producers of ivory products do not mind buying ivory from any and all available sources within the country.

The argument in the passage would be most seriously weakens if it were true that

A. Poachers started getting a significantly better bargain abroad for their ivory in and around 2005.

B. The demand for ivory products, primarily decorative items, suddenly shot up in 2005 following a countrywide fashion trend.

C. In 2005, independent poachers joined forces to form substantially bigger groups which could face increased government vigilance.

D. In 2005, poachers identified an unique and untraceable technique of hunting elephants

E. The producers of ivory products are always ready to pay exorbitant prices for raw ivory since they know that they can recover their money

carouselambra · Answer

IMO A

Government efforts to curb the poaching of elephants primarily for their ivory tusks was a success in 2005. If the efforts had not been successful, the price of domestically produced ivory goods would not have increased significantly in 2005, since the producers of ivory products do not mind buying ivory from any and all available sources within the country.

The argument in the passage would be most seriously weakens if it were true that

Cause : Govt. efforts to curb poaching
Effect : Success - price of domestically produced ivory goods increased

Carefully note the assumptions/implicit facts :
1. Prices were low earlier
2. #1 might have been the result of widely available ivory goods (as stated)
3.  People selling ivory were actually affected, i.e. they did not find an alternative to poach and yet sell the ivory elsewhere
 
To weaken : 
1. Find an answer inline with the pre-thinking done above
2. For cause and effect questions (weaken), prove the involvement of a third factor
3.  Prove that the effect did not actually happen

a) Poachers started getting a significantly better bargain abroad for their ivory in and around 2005.
Correct- In line with  highlighted  thoughts.

b) The demand for ivory products,  primarily decorative items , suddenly shot up in 2005 following a countrywide fashion trend.
Not a part of the passage as a whole

c) In 2005,  independent  poachers joined forces to form substantially bigger groups  which could face increased  government vigilance.
Out of scope/not related to the conclusion/does not weaken

d) In 2005, poachers identified an unique and untraceable technique of hunting elephants
Interesting but we do not know whether this was a success. Nothing mentioned around the sale of ivory products.

e) The producers of ivory products are always ready to pay exorbitant prices for  raw ivory  since they know that they can recover their money
Acceptable fact but what if the raw ivory was not available at all?
Also, this is unrelated to the conclusion.

anshsaurabh · Answer

Can you please explain why you eliminated option B ?
Option B talks about the increased demand for IVORY PRODUCTS, PRIMARILY DECORATIVE ITEMS, and the argument mentions that the price of DOMESTICALLY PRODUCED IVORY PRODUCTS increased significantly. Aren't the two same ?
Option B also weakens the argument by giving an alternate reason for the SIGNIFICANT price increase. Also, since DECORATIVE ITEMS are not part of the stimulus doesn't mean it cannot be a correct answer choice, according to CR BIBLE book.
I am still confused b/w A & B.

carouselambra · Answer

Hi anshsaurabh Let's go through option B. I am marking some keywords in the question stem first. Government efforts to curb the poaching of elephants primarily for their ivory tusks was a success in 2005. If the efforts had not been successful, the price of domestically produced ivory goods would not have increased significantly in 2005, since the producers of ivory products do not mind buying ivory from any and all available sources within the country. Now, coming to your thoughts. Option B talks about the increased demand for IVORY PRODUCTS, PRIMARILY DECORATIVE ITEMS, and the argument mentions that the price of DOMESTICALLY PRODUCED IVORY PRODUCTS increased significantly. Aren't the two same ? No, they are not the same. Example : I might produce ivory domestically but choose not to display. It is our assumption/imagination that ivory products are used for decoration. But they are not just limited to decoration per se. They can be used for other purpose not mentioned in the passage. Option B also weakens the argument by giving an alternate reason for the SIGNIFICANT price increase. Also, since DECORATIVE ITEMS are not part of the stimulus doesn't mean it cannot be a correct answer choice The biggest flaw in the thought process here is that option (B) is NOT weakening the conclusion. I can delve into the details but would really appreciate if you share the conclusion with me and then we can take this further

anshsaurabh · Answer

carouselambra

Answer choice B is very complex since it weakens (just a little bit) but it also doesn't weaken the conclusion. 
HOW IT WEAKENS - it provides an alternate cause for the increase in the price of one type of ivory products, i.e decorative items.
HOW IT DOES NOT WEAKEN - even if there is an increase in demand for decorative ivory products, it doesn't mean that the government's efforts to curb poaching within the country weren't successful as poachers could have got a better deal abroad as in answer choice A.

Am i right here ?

carouselambra · Answer

Hi  anshsaurabh

Two things :
1.  "it provides an alternate cause for the increase in the price of one type of ivory products, i.e decorative items." 
Yes it provides an alternate cause but as you have already highlighted, the price of ÖNE type of ivory product shot up,i.e. decorative item.
Moreover, it is NOT mentioned who the buyers are. Buyers can be you,me or anyone under the sun. The passage is primarily talking about the producers of ivory here.

2.  " even if there is an increase in demand for decorative ivory products, it doesn't mean that the government's efforts to curb poaching within the country weren't successful as poachers could have got a better deal abroad as in answer choice" 
Option A simply tells you what you described in your thought #2 hence (A) is the right answer.
First of all, your statement is once again limited to the decorative products - something which is too narrow for the passage as we are dealing with ivory products here. Even if you choose to ignore this, let's drill down your argument to see the other side of the argument :

Agree, the poachers MIGHT get a better deal abroad but think, where is the ivory coming from? It is obviously not possible that poachers will import ivory only to export it at a "better deal." It is implicit that export will be done PROVIDED the raw materials are available. Owing to the poaching, the ivory products were never procured.

Let me know if this is still not clear. Will try to explain with an alternate example.

Cheers!

jabhatta2 · Answer

GMATNinja  - Curious if you could give analysis on B ? i chose B because it showed

-- actually price increase DID take place but because of  demand rise.

So we cant conclude anything about poaching efforts by the govt

That weakens the argument i thought

On the other hand - A i thought was irrelevant because the argument in the passage is talking about increased  domestic prices . Option A seems to be talking about  international prices.

Parthsarthi · Answer

For those stuck between A and B

A says that poachers started getting better prices for their ivory abroad which meant that ivory product manufacturers will find it hard to get ivory at previous prices and they will also have to pay the increased prices to poachers in order to get ivory from them which otherwise can easily be sold abroad by poachers. Hence it will be costly for domestic ivory product manufacturers to produce their items now than before and hence ivory product prices will increase. This weakens the conclusion that government initiative was responsible for ivory product price increase.

Why the answer can't be B:
I also selected B first but later realised that only thing B is saying is that Domestic demand for ivory product increased ,but the price of any commodity is based on both demand and supply. 
What would happen if the supply has also increased in this case. Then the price would not increase. Hence we can't conclusively say that just because demand of Ivory product increased it would also lead to increase in their prices.

Hope it helps

Posted from my mobile device

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.

Government efforts to curb the poaching of elephants primarily for the

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Government efforts to curb the poaching of elephants primarily for the

Prep Toolkit

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