Q13 - Britain is now rabies free

[clairenlee]

Could you explain what is wrong with the answer choice D?
I was torn between D and E and ended up opting for D because "bound to fail" in E appeared too strong initially. I sort of see why E is better choice now but still cannot see what precisely is wrong with the answer choice D.
Thanks.

[noah]

The argument's conclusion is that the policy can't control rabies indefinitely. Why not? Because rabid bats can fly in, and the quarantine of domesticated animals is powerless to stop that!

With this sort of question, it's smart to have the general answer in mind as the wrong answer choices can be complex and tempting if you don't know what you're basically looking for (note, this is a bit vaguer than formally predicting the answer). Here, I'm looking for something that says the plan is undermined by pointing out that there's something that can happen that the plan can't stop and which will create the problem that the plan is designed to stop. (E) says just about that! (Granted, it's pretty easy to write good predictions after you know the correct answer!) While "bound to fail" is somewhat strong, "cannot succeed" in the stimulus is as well.

(A) is incorrect because the argument doesn't suggest that there's some other reason England will remain rabies free. The argument is that the plan will NOT work.

(B) is silly. There's no objection that is then dismissed.

(C) is out of scope - officials and enforcement?

(D) is tempting, however there's no discussion of the policy not being universally adopted. The policy could be universally adopted and the bats could still fly in. It's nonsensical to consider the bats as a party that could adopt the policy - they're the animal, perhaps, to whom the policy should be applied. However, the bats in discussion, aren't necessarily domesticated. Does anyone keep pet bats?

[the_sork]

I also think D is wrong because:

the stimulus is referring to the failure of the policy in quarantining the bats. Adopting the same policy in other countries would in other words not make a difference. The stimulus criticizes the effectiveness of the policy itself, not the universality of it.

[helenaygu]

The argument's conclusion is that the policy can't control rabies indefinitely. Why not? Because rabid bats can fly in, and the quarantine of domesticated animals is powerless to stop that!

With this sort of question, it's smart to have the general answer in mind as the wrong answer choices can be complex and tempting if you don't know what you're basically looking for (note, this is a bit vaguer than formally predicting the answer). Here, I'm looking for something that says the plan is undermined by pointing out that there's something that can happen that the plan can't stop and which will create the problem that the plan is designed to stop. (E) says just about that! (Granted, it's pretty easy to write good predictions after you know the correct answer!) While "bound to fail" is somewhat strong, "cannot succeed" in the stimulus is as well.

(A) is incorrect because the argument doesn't suggest that there's some other reason England will remain rabies free. The argument is that the plan will NOT work.

(B) is silly. There's no objection that is then dismissed.

(C) is out of scope - officials and enforcement?

(D) is tempting, however there's no discussion of the policy not being universally adopted. The policy could be universally adopted and the bats could still fly in. It's nonsensical to consider the bats as a party that could adopt the policy - they're the animal, perhaps, to whom the policy should be applied. However, the bats in discussion, aren't necessarily domesticated. Does anyone keep pet bats?

Hi, can you give me a more in-depth explanation on (A)?

(A) says: "trying to undermine support for a certain policy by pointing out that factors other than the policy itself could account for the results attributed to that policy". I understood the "other factor" as the uncontrollable entry of wild bats flying in and out of England, which is separate from what the policy could account for.

For (E), the phrase "an event" threw me off; I understood the LSAT usage of "an event" to refer to a single event - but I guess the inevitable entrance of wild bats into British territory can be identified as a "single event"?

Please respond, thanks!