Q3 - Even though trading in ivory

[monygg85]

I am having a tough time with this one! I dont understand how D is the answer at all.

This is a strengthen question that asks us to strengthen the claim that because piano makers have never been major consumers of ivory, the development of synthetic ivory wont help much in preventing the killing of more elephants for their tusks in order to obtain the most natural ivory.

Im guessing here, but is it D because it strengthens the fact that piano makers are not the major consumers of ivory? In fact according to this answer the most common use for natural ivory is ornamental carvings.

I had eliminated everything except C, the answer I chose. I just felt like since there are no other substitutes to ivory it would mean that the conclusion is strengthen, the synthetic ivory wont help much.

Any thoughts on this to help clarify?

[nbayar1212]

Pretty much, yeah. I think the correct answer here is just so obvious that it almost doesn't seem like it can be right.

The stimulus tells us that:
1. ivory is used on pianos
2. a new synthetic ivory has been developed that pianists find acceptable
3. Conclusion: But since piano makers are not major consumers of ivory, the new synthetic ivory will probably not make a big difference in the number of elephants killed.

Since the stimulus states that "piano makers have never been major consumers of ivory" the stimulus assumes that some other entity has actually been a major consumer of ivory - but if you think about it, this doesn't have to be true. What if piano makers use a very small percentage of all the illegal ivory but because they are willing to pay a very high price, there are a lot of poachers that are killing elephants so that they can have a chance at being one of the few suppliers of elephant ivory to the piano makers? In that case, the piano makers might not be consuming a lot of ivory but if they weren't consuming any, then the amount of ivory being traded would probably be significantly curtailed since one of the only consumers (even though they'd be a minor consumer) has stopped purchasing ivory.

D) fills in this gap by stating that there is a major consumer of ivory i.e. people who make ornamental carvings which gives us a reason to think that the hypothetical I laid out above wouldn't be true.

C) Gives us a potential reason why synthetic ivory may have been developed but doesn't give a reason for us to think that the switch to synthetic ivory will not have an effect on the illegal ivory trade.

[tommywallach]

Hey Guys,

Thought I'd weigh in on this one, just to help out and show it from top to bottom. It's a strengthen, so we'll start with the core:

Conclusion: Synthetic ivory will probably not do much to help curb the killing of elephants.

Premise: Piano makers don't use much ivory.

There are a few gaps one could note here. First of all, the synthetic ivory could possible be used in all applications of old ivory, so it would help curb killing. Or, it could be that it only takes a little bit of ivory to save a lot of elephants (tusks aren't that big). We'll have to look at the answers.

(A) is totally irrelevant. We already know pianos are switching to synthetic, so it doesn't matter if people can tell or not.

(B) is just like (A). We already know the switch is happening, so we don't need to know anything else about it.

(C) is the same as both (A) and (B)! Who cares about other options? We already know this is happening!

(D) is CORRECT. This relates to the first of the gaps I mentioned. Now that we know synthetic ivory can't be used in a major category of ivory usage, we have more proof that synthetic ivory might not help that much.

(E) makes the same mistake as (A), (B), and (C).

LSAT definitely could've written much harder wrong answers, to make this a more difficult question. But it's #3, so it's not supposed to be that hard!

-t

[monygg85]

Thanks a Lot guys! That cleared it up, I guess it was one of those that stumped me because of how easy the thought process was!

[nbayar1212]

Hey Guys,

Thought I'd weigh in on this one, just to help out and show it from top to bottom. It's a strengthen, so we'll start with the core:

Conclusion: Synthetic ivory will probably not do much to help curb the killing of elephants.

Premise: Piano makers don't use much ivory.

There are a few gaps one could note here. First of all, the synthetic ivory could possible be used in all applications of old ivory, so it would help curb killing. Or, it could be that it only takes a little bit of ivory to save a lot of elephants (tusks aren't that big). We'll have to look at the answers.

(A) is totally irrelevant. We already know pianos are switching to synthetic, so it doesn't matter if people can tell or not.

(B) is just like (A). We already know the switch is happening, so we don't need to know anything else about it.

(C) is the same as both (A) and (B)! Who cares about other options? We already know this is happening!

(D) is CORRECT. This relates to the first of the gaps I mentioned. Now that we know synthetic ivory can't be used in a major category of ivory usage, we have more proof that synthetic ivory might not help that much.

(E) makes the same mistake as (A), (B), and (C).

LSAT definitely could've written much harder wrong answers, to make this a more difficult question. But it's #3, so it's not supposed to be that hard!

-t

Hi Tommy,

Just to make sure, did you by any chance find anything faulty about my reasoning as to why D is the correct answer or were you simply expanding on the explanation? I would really appreciate your feedback because I really don't want to go away from the problem thinking my reasoning was ok when there were clear problems with it.

Thanks!

[tommywallach]

Hey There,

Nope, your reasoning was super-great. I just like to take things from top to bottom, just so people can get the whole thing in one post. But everything said was spot on. Well done!

-t

[WaltGrace1983]

Couldn't (B) and (E) slightly weaken the conclusion by showing some benefit to the new ivory? The conclusion is saying that synthetic ivory isn't going to do much to elephant poaching - people are still going to want that real ivory! However, (B) and (E) might provide some reason why the new ivory might still be good and perhaps sufficient! The new look ivory looks a lot like the old ivory and resembles its texture (B) and it costs less than other substitutes (E).

However, I guess you could still make the argument asking, "but what does this have to do with elephant killing?" I guess we would really need to show that these benefits would be enough to cause people to stop wanting ivory and thus to stop killing elephants.

[christine.defenbaugh]

As always, you raise an interesting question WaltGrace1983!

I'll give you two answers:

Practical/Strategic Answer

When you are looking for a strengthen answer, the difference between wrong answers that weaken, and wrong answers that are irrelevant is best discussed over wine, late at night, alongside some esoteric philosophical concepts.

In other words, far away from the actual LSAT. And I say that not just because the answer to the question doesn't affect your TASK, though that's true. It's also because the writers of the LSAT likely did not spend a great deal of time categorizing the incorrect answers specifically as either weaken or irrelevant.

The LSAT is an extremely carefully written exam, and the writers of it will make absolutely certain that the line between the correct strengthener and an irrelevant answer is clearly defined. But they aren't likely to take that care between incorrect irrelevant answers and incorrect weaken answers - why would they? As a result, a wrong answer to a strengthen question might easily debatably be either irrelevant or weakening.

Language is not in and of itself precise - the language of the LSAT only falls into precise patterns and structure because the writers have made it so.


Now, I'll go ahead and give you another answer, because I like wine, late nights, and esoteric philosophical debates.

One major assumption that is getting made here is that the new synthetic ivory won't be used (or used much) outside the piano market. (And (D), of course, supports that assumption.)

(B) raises a positive of the new synth-ivory in comparison to real ivory. The fact that it well mimics the thing it is meant to replace makes it every so slightly more likely that rest of the ivory market will actually like it.

So, I'd agree with you that (B) weakens the argument just a tad by making it less likely that the new synth-ivory won't help reduce poaching.

(E) however, is slightly different. This raises a positive of the new synth-ivory in comparison to prior synth versions. But is it cheaper than real ivory? Were the old synth versions cheaper than real ivory?

I can see arguments on both sides for this one: one might say that the reduction in cost from old-synth to new-synth must surely make it at least a tad more likely to get new some people to switch from the real stuff. But one might also argue that if the synth versions were actually still more expensive than real ivory, it wouldn't make it any more likely to get new switchers - and as a result, this would only weaken the argument if you make some additional assumptions.

If I had a gun to my head, I'd say they both weaken the argument a bit, but that (B) weakens it a bit more. Fortunately, though, we don't have a gun to our head, and the LSAT does not ask us to make these kinds of hairsplitting distinctions to get to correct answers!

[liq419]

They key is to get rid of all the fluff in the STIM (fluff: piano makers switching to synthetic ivory blah blah )

Flawed reasoning:
piano makers are not major consumers,
so even if we lower their consumption of ivory,
it's not going to help much.

The key connection is:
not major consumer---> not going to help
Answer needs to deal with this element/gap/link about major CONSUMERS.

STRENGTHEN this:
(D) Correct. proves that it's true they are not the major consumer, so the trading of ivory will continue to be high (due to the demand for ornamental carvings)

(A) so what if you can distinguish it? doesn't deal with the CONSUMERS element.
(B) so what if synthetic resembles= natural ivory? Doesn't deal with the CONSUMERS element.
(C) Ok. explains why we produced synthetic ivory instead. But doesn't deal with the CONSUMERS element.
(E) So what if it cost less? doesn't deal with the CONSUMERS element.
Another way you could think about it is that: this gives us more reason to use the synthetic ivory. so it should help to lower the demand for natural ivory MORE, thus weakens the author's position (though it doesn't necessarily weaken the argument, as it doesn't deal with the reasoning in the argument at all).

[JenniferK632]

Just wanted to clarify as to whether this question was a "strengthen" question or a "most strongly supported/inference" question. Thanks!

Hey Guys,

Thought I'd weigh in on this one, just to help out and show it from top to bottom. It's a strengthen, so we'll start with the core:

Conclusion: Synthetic ivory will probably not do much to help curb the killing of elephants.

Premise: Piano makers don't use much ivory.

There are a few gaps one could note here. First of all, the synthetic ivory could possible be used in all applications of old ivory, so it would help curb killing. Or, it could be that it only takes a little bit of ivory to save a lot of elephants (tusks aren't that big). We'll have to look at the answers.

(A) is totally irrelevant. We already know pianos are switching to synthetic, so it doesn't matter if people can tell or not.

(B) is just like (A). We already know the switch is happening, so we don't need to know anything else about it.

(C) is the same as both (A) and (B)! Who cares about other options? We already know this is happening!

(D) is CORRECT. This relates to the first of the gaps I mentioned. Now that we know synthetic ivory can't be used in a major category of ivory usage, we have more proof that synthetic ivory might not help that much.

(E) makes the same mistake as (A), (B), and (C).

LSAT definitely could've written much harder wrong answers, to make this a more difficult question. But it's #3, so it's not supposed to be that hard!

-t

[Laura Damone]

It's a strengthen question! When the answer supports the argument, it's a Strengthen question. When the argument supports the answer choice, it's a Most Strongly Supported Inference question