Unless tiger hunting decreases, tigers will soon be extinct in the wil

(A) Incorrect: Paragraph never assumes that the ban will be successfully enforced. It says "IF these countries can successfully enforce the legislation . . ."

(B) Incorrect: The paragraph is not intended to address the problem of other endangered animals. Its argument is that a successful ban on tiger hunting will allow for the survival of tigers. Other endangered animals has nothing to do with this.

(C) Incorrect: Not that strong of an argument against the author's reasoning. Even if tiger hunters aren't that successful, a successful ban on tiger hunting should help the survival of tigers.

(D) Incorrect: Past bans are outside the scope of the argument. We can't assume past bans have any impact on how successful a future ban will be

(E) Correct: The red-flag in the author's original reasoning is that if tiger hunting is banned, then tiger survival is ensured. This assumes that there is nothing else out there that is hurting tiger survival. There's no guarantee that some other factor isn't leading to the endangering of tigers­

­

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 enforced

The 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 species

Other species are irrelevant for our argument.

(C) Fails to take into account how often tiger hunters are unsuccessful in their attempts to kill tigers

We 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 hunting

Past 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 survival

Correct. 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