Logical Reasoning

PT113 · S2 · Q24 Roxanne: To protect declining elephant

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Roxanne: To protect declining elephant herds from poachers seeking to obtain ivory, people concerned about such endangered species should buy no new ivory.

Salvador's Conclusion (therefore / should)

People who are worried about protecting endangered species should refrain from buying any ivory at all.

Salvador's Evidence

Current demand for antique ivory exceeds the supply, so people who'd prefer to buy antique but are willing to buy new ivory end up buying new ivory instead.

If concerned people refrain from buying any ivory, demand for new ivory will drop.

Evaluate

Salvador's conclusion is about people who are worried about endangered species and thus want to buy antique ivory.

He's saying, "Sorry, y'all can't buy any ivory."

Why not? What's wrong with antique ivory? Nothing, directly. But indirectly buying antique ivory reduces the supply of antique ivory which then makes it more likely that someone with less conscience will buy new ivory when they can't get their hands on antique ivory.

Goal

We need an answer saying something like,

24.

Which one of the following principles, if established, would most help to justify Salvador's position?

  1. People concerned about endangered species

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This principle correctly applies to those who are concerned about endangered species. Does it instruct them to refrain from buying any ivory? No it just instructs them to disseminate information about threats to elephants.

    2% picked this

  2. People concerned about endangered species

    Weak Evidence / Conclusion Match

    This answer sounds more like a rule that instructs conscientious consumers to refrain from buying new ivory. Buying new ivory could result in harm to the elephants, and an acceptable substitute (antique ivory) is available. We, of course, want a rule that will keep them from buying either type of ivory. Could we say that "antique ivory" is a product whose purchase could result in harm to the endangered species? Not directly, but maybe indirectly. But if we assign antique ivory as the "product whose purchase could result in harm", then do we meet the required condition of this rule that "there is an acceptable substitute for antique ivory"? No. So it's hard to make this rule work either way we slice it.

    5% picked this

  3. People concerned about endangered species

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This rule forbids a conscientious consumer from buying new ivory, but it carves out an exception for antique ivory (objects already in existence when the species endangered). We need a rule that doesn't give them this exception permission for antique ivory. It's supposed to convince them not to buy any ivory.

    5% picked this

  4. People concerned about endangered species

    Bad Conclusion / Evidence Match

    This rule says that conscientious consumers should refrain from participating in trade for certain products. We want a principle that says they should refrain from buying certain products. That seems like a weird language stretch, to think that buying X is the same as participating in trade in X. Also, this rule has a requirement that workers engaged in the ivory trade also agree to some restraint, and that doesn't match anything in Salvador's argument.

    1% picked this

  5. Correct

    People concerned about endangered species

    Why this is right

    This rule says that conscientious consumers should act in certain ways, and we need that way to be "acting in the way where you refrain from buying any ivory" (it's a little weird to say you're acting in a certain way by refraining from doing something, but we do use that expression like that sometimes. "Act like a professional" / "Act like a lady / gentleman" / "Act like you belong" are all expressions that are usually used to tell someone to refrain from behaving a certain way). Okay, can we match up "refraining from buying all ivory" with the rest of this answer? Is there reason to believe that refraining from buying all ivory will help reduce the undesirable results of the actions performed by people who do not share that concern? Yeesh. Is there reason to think that if we avoid buying all ivory, people who are not as conscientious about avoiding new ivory will buy it less? Yes. These people, we're told, prefer antique if they can find it. So if we refrain from buying up antique ivory, then there will be more antique ivory supply for when these other people come looking for some, and if they find antique ivory then they are less likely to buy new ivory, which has the undesirable result of incentivizing poaches to kill more elephants. These answers were all very complicated. The easiest way to find the correct one would be to understand that Salvador was making a case to conscientious people based on what non-conscientious people would be likely to do. His argument is, "Don't do X, because if you do X, then that will lead these other people to do Y, which we know you don't want". This is the only answer that reflects that notion of "refrain from doing X, because doing X would cause other people to do Y."

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

    87% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free