Q3 - The official listing of an animal species

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Explain a Result

Stimulus Breakdown:
Expected: Since safeguards get put in place, an animal placed on the endangered species list should see a rebound in population.

Unexpected: Some species see a more-rapid decline after being placed on the list.

Answer Anticipation:
Any answer that gives a reason animals would be losing population will survive a first pass. Other than that, I'm not sure what the answer will be.

Correct answer:
(D)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Neutral. The stimulus quite clearly draws the line at pre/post-listed. If the stimulus shifted between the process starting and the animal being on the list, this answer would be more relevant.

(B) Neutral. This answer explains why some animals are helped by the classification and others are not. However, it doesn't help explain why some species actually see an increased decline in population after the classification, and that increase in decline is what we need to explain.

(C) Neutral. This answer choice might explain why each animal is now receiving less attention or resources when listed as endangered, but that wouldn't explain the increased decline. If anything, this would explain why more animals on the list aren't receiving more help.

(D) Sad bingo. Going on the list would necessarily make these animals seem more scarce (calling something endangered/rare would have that effect). When listed, collectors get more interested, which would lead to an increase in hunting/capture, thus speeding up the decline in population.

(E) Opposite, if anything. If it's harder to poach them as their population decreases, then animals should see a decline in the rate of decline as they become rarer.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Sometimes, the easiest way to rule out an answer is to think of a situation that would be explained by that answer, noting that it's different than the situation in the stimulus. See (A), (B), and (C) for examples.

#officialexplanation

[ErikS659]

D..what? I'm confused. It is irrelevant whether these animals are more desirable after being listed as endangered. Sure, they could be more desirable to hunters and poachers, which would certainly lead to their decline. They are equally likely, however, to be more desirable to animal collectors who try to save animals by mating them (or whatever conservationists do to save endangered species). (D) said, "hunters and poachers are more likely to kill animals when they are perceived to be rare," then that would obviously be correct. But the simple fact that they are more desirable means nothing.

(B) on the other hand gives us good information. If we only help animals that hit at the public's heartstrings, well then probably not too many wild animals are going to be saved.

This is one of the questions where I'm not really understanding LSAC's logic. If (D) is assuming that animal collectors are hunters, they I suppose (D) is correct. But you really have to talk to yourself into that. Animal collectors could just as likely be animal enthusiasts who want to save them.

[ZaftigG65]

Good point but who cares about Public Campaigns? The argument is about actual red tape (restrictions and stuff). Public Campaigns are irrelevant. D on the other hand has some relevance, albeit a little weak. But this is a Paradox question and when it comes to these type of questions, it seems you can add a little similar to Most Strongly Supported question types.