nakib77 wrote:
Unless tiger hunting decreases, tigers will soon be extinct in the wild. The countries in which the tigers habitats are located are currently debating joint legislation that would ban tiger hunting. Thus, if these countries can successfully enforce this legislation, the survival of tigers in the wild will be ensured.
The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument
(A) assumes without sufficient warrant that a ban on tiger hunting could be successfully enforced
(B) considers the effects of hunting on tigers without also considering the effects of hunting on other endangered animal species
(C) fails to take into account how often tiger hunters are unsuccessful in their attempts to kill tigers
(D) neglects to consider the results of governmental attempts in the past to limit tiger hunting
(E) takes the removal of an impediment to the tigers' survival as a guarantee of their survival
Source : GMATPrep Default Exam Pack
Premises: Unless tiger hunting decreases, tigers will soon be extinct in the wild.
The countries in which the tigers habitats are located are currently debating joint legislation that would ban tiger hunting.
Conditional Conclusion: If these countries can successfully enforce this legislation, the survival of tigers in the wild will be ensured.
The premise tells us that reduction in tiger hunting is necessary to save tigers from extinction.
Unless A happens, B will happen – means A is necessary for ‘Not B’.
The conclusion says that if the legislature comes into being, tigers will be saved. So, it takes a necessary condition to be sufficient, our flaw number 1 above.
Let’s look at the options now.
(A) Assumes without sufficient warrant that a ban on tiger hunting could be successfully enforcedThe conclusion says that if the ban can be enforced, then the survival will be ensured. It does not assume that the ban can be enforced. That is why the conclusion is conditional. Provided the ban can be ensured, the survival is guaranteed.
(B) Considers the effects of hunting on tigers without also considering the effects of hunting on other endangered animal speciesOther species are irrelevant for our argument.
(C) Fails to take into account how often tiger hunters are unsuccessful in their attempts to kill tigersWe need to worry about the successful killings. We need to stop them. How often they are unsuccessful is irrelevant.
(D) Neglects to consider the results of governmental attempts in the past to limit tiger huntingPast success or failure does not imply future success or failure.
(E) Takes the removal of an impediment to the tigers' survival as a guarantee of their survivalCorrect. It assumes that removal of one impediment will lead to survival. But there could be other impediments too such as natural conflicts, diseases etc.
Answer (E)Discussion on Flaw in Reasoning:
https://youtu.be/3s0tWn3tiT8