Because of the lucrative but illegal

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope: other animals17% picked this

   Most poachers who are discouraged from hunting rhinoceroses are not likely to hunt other animals

   Sorry, other animals, but the poachers can have at ya, as far as this argument is concerned. The author's plan/conclusion is only about ensuring the survival of this species of rhino. So if we negate this answer and learn that "our plan will likely encourage most poachers to hunt other animals for their horns" it wouldn't weaken the argument at all.

   17%
2. B

   Correct65% picked this

   At least some rhinoceroses whose horns are periodically trimmed off will be able

   Why this is right

   When we negate (i.e. contradict) a some statement, we're saying "it is not the case that at least one ... ". The only number that contradicts "at least one" is zero. So if negate this answer, it says "None of the rhinos with trimmed horns will be able to attract mates". Does that hurt the argument? Sure! After all, if rhinos can't mate, they can't replicate, and so they can't perpetuate the species. This answer, if negated, shows a way that the Plan would backfire and actually threaten the survival of the rhinos in a different way.

   Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   65%
3. C

   Weakens4% picked this

   Poachers hunt at least some immature rhinoceroses whose horns have not yet

   The author wouldn't be motivated to assume that poachers also hunt young rhinos without horns. This would actually mean that even if we trim off their horns, there would still be rhinos getting hunted (which goes against the notion of "we've therefore ensured the survival of the species").

   4%
4. D

   Too Strong: constant11% picked this

   The demand for rhinoceros horns will remain constant even if the supply decreases after the periodic trimming-off of

   The author doesn't need demand to remain constant. If demand were to lessen as low supply of horns made their prices skyrocket, that wouldn't hurt the author's argument at all.

   11%
5. E

   Weakens4% picked this

   Rhinoceroses whose horns have been trimmed off are unable to defend

   This answer would be correct if it switched "unable" to "able". Our author is assuming that we can trim off the horns and the rhinos will survive (thus, that they are still able to defend themselves against predators).

   4%