Because of the lucrative but illegal trade in rhinoceros horns, a certain rhinoceros species has been hunted nearly to extinction.
Conclusion
An effective way to ensure the survival of that species would be periodically trim off the horns of all rhinoceroses.
Evidence
Because of the lucrative but illegal trade in rhino horns, a certain rhino species has been hunted nearly to extinction.
Trimming off the horns would eliminate the motivation for poaching.
Evaluate
When an author is selling us on a Plan, we want to think about how we could potentially follow their Plan but not achieve their Goal. (This is akin to accepting their Evidence, but thinking about how the Conclusion could fail to be true).
Can we think of a story in which we trim off the horns, it removes the motivation for poaching, but it doesn't ensure the survival of this rhino?
One angle we could take relates to how overly strong "ensure" is. Even if we remove the threat of poaching. These rhino have already been hunted to near extinction. One bad storm or drought or wildfire or natural calamity could be enough to wipe out the remaining members. So the author is assuming that, .
Similarly, maybe trimming horns would eliminate poaching, but maybe there are some rich brats who want to hunt rhinos with a crossbow from their private helicopters. Our author is assuming that .
LSAT loves when Plans backfire, so is there any unintended consequence of trimming off horns that wouldn't be good?
Maybe it would make it harder for the rhinos to find food. Maybe it would make it harder for them to defend themselves against attacks. The author has to assume that trimming the horns doesn't hurt the rhinos survival chances in some way.
Goal
Our author is assuming,
She's also assuming, in idea math, that .