Principle: A law whose purpose

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct90% picked this

   Since there are relatively few snake charmers and they each capture relatively few snakes per year, snake charmers have a

   Why this is right

   We were looking for "Snake charmers' actions do not threaten wild animal populations". This is telling us that snake charmers have only a minimal effect on wild populations. Is it fair to think that "if they have only a minimal effect on wild populations" that "they don't threaten wild populations"? Sure, that's a reasonable connection. The language of the answer doesn't have to be perfect to win; it just has to be better than the other options.

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

   90%
2. B

   Unrelated to Goal2% picked this

   Many attempts to prosecute snake charmers under this law have failed because prosecutors lacked adequate knowledge of the

   In order to apply this rule to snake charmers we need to know whether the rule applies to them, so we need to know whether "Snake charmers' actions do / don't threaten wild animal populations". Since this answer doesn't speak to that at all, it's useless to us.

   2%
3. C

   Unrelated to Goal1% picked this

   Very few, if any, snake charmers are aware that there is a law that prohibits the

   In order to apply the principle to snake charmers we need to know whether the rule applies to them, so we need to know whether "Snake charmers are a category of people whose actions do not threaten wild animal populations". Since this answer doesn't speak to that at all, it's useless to us.

   1%
4. D

   Too Weak6% picked this

   Snake populations are much less threatened than the populations of several other species for which

   In order to apply the principle to snake charmers we need to know whether the rule applies to them, so we need to know whether "Snake charmers are a category of people whose actions do not threaten wild animal populations". This answer makes it sound like snake populations are less threatened than are other populations, which somewhat goes in the direction we want, but that doesn't tell us whether or not snake populations are threatened. Bill Gates is less rich than Jeff Bezos, but Bill is still rich. (A) vs. (D) comes down to, "Which one better convinces us that the actions of snake charmers don't threaten wild snake populations"?

   6%
5. E

   Unrelated to Goal1% picked this

   Snake charmers capture wild snakes only because they believe they would be unable to earn

   In order to apply the principle to snake charmers we need to know whether the rule applies to them, so we need to know whether "Snake charmers are a category of people whose actions do not threaten wild animal populations". Since this answer doesn't speak to that at all, it's useless to us.

   1%