"Thereby/Therefore" and Rhinoceros Horns Forum

[WaltGrace83]

So we all know that therefore or thereby does NOT always signal the final conclusion of the argument. Such words can also signal the intermediate conclusion of an argument. For example, "TLS members score the best on the LSAT because they have the drive to study the hardest and, therefore, will put in the hours it takes for success." In this example, the chain looks more like this (Drive → Hours → Best) rather than something like (Drive → Best → Hours). However, what happens when there are TWO sequential "thereby"s?

Take PT19-S2-Q15 (#164 in the Cambridge NA Packet)



This has a really interesting flow. It essentially breaks down to something like the following...

• Rhino horn trade has caused near-extinction of rhino species
  +
  (Trimming off the horns → Effective way to ensure survival)
  →
  Motivation for poaching would be eliminated

There are two main assumptions that I see going on here.

• (1) Who's to say that trimming off the horns would ensure survival? We know that the LSAT likes to have plans backfire on us. Maybe the horns are necessary for life!
  (2) Maybe there are other reasons why poachers poach? Perhaps they poach for other things than the rhino horns.

On the Manhattan Discussion for this question though, Noah was saying that I have my core all wrong (wasn't saying that to me directly but you know...). He was thinking that the core would look more like this:

• Rhino horn trade has caused near-extinction of rhino species
  +
  (Trimming off the horns → ~Motivation for poaching)
  →
  Effective way to ensure rhino survival

I can see that core making sense too however, I am still confused by two things in this argument:

• (1) The function of "therefore/thereby." If we take Noah's core as correct then this would basically mean that "therefore/thereby" would go against its actual definition. What I mean is that "therefore/thereby" shows that X was a consequence of the thing that came before it. If I say X thereby Y therefore Z I am showing a chain of causation: X caused Y which caused Z. Unless I am wrong - which is the whole point of me asking such questions - I don't think that you can rearrange the order of "thereby/therefore" statements. I understand that we don't want to get too formulaic and merely thinking that "therefore/thereby" always initiates the argument's main conclusion but that is a different issue entirely. I am just saying that we have to pay attention to the order of thereby/therefore....right?
  
  (2) Answer choice (A). My problem with this question is that it goes from talking about "rhinos" to the "motivation for poaching," in general. From what I gather, no matter what order of the core you understand, there is no indication that "eliminating the motivation for poaching" refers specifically to rhinos and that is why I thought (A) seemed okay for a necessary assumption. If the poachers are likely to hunt other animals for their horns then would this be eliminating the motivation for poaching? I don't think so. The only potential gap I can see in my reasoning is perhaps there is something between "motivation" and the actual action of "hunting." You can hunt without motivation I suppose.

So TLS, what am I missing here? I understand (B) - it makes total sense. But I cannot get over (A) and I cannot get over the order of thereby and therefore.

[SpiritofFire]

The key to this question is to really sort out the conclusion and the premise(s).

Like you said, words like therefore can be a big red herring in finding the conclusion, but in this case, it correctly identifies the conclusion.

Break it down like this:

1) horn market being lucrative CAUSED A rhino species to be hunted to near extinction.
2) Therefore, trimming horns will ensure survival
3) ...thereby eliminating the motive for poaching.

What is 3 saying? It's that trimming horns will eliminate motive. The thereby modifies trimming( you're right it refers to the thing mentioned before it!). Based on those 3 sets of info, Noah is right. 1 and 3 are there to support 2.

BECAUSE Trimming horns eliminates the motive, their survival is ensured by trimming horns.

As for your assumptions.
(1) we don't know that trimming horns will ensure survival. That is the author's reasoning based on the fact that trimming horns will eliminate the motive for poaching. And you're right, maybe taking the horns away will kill them (touched on by the correct answer)... Or Maybe an asteroid could wipe out all rhinos even if poaching goes away.

(2) As for assumption 2, you are almost there. There could be other reasons for poaching, but they cannot include anything precluded by a lack of motive. So say we take up the offer to trim horns. Given that it eliminates the motive for poaching, what other possibilities could there be for poaching? I'd say it can't be the desire for other parts of the rhino since you would be poaching with a motive to get those other parts. It might work if you could argue at poachers could poach without a motive, perhaps while sleepwalking or something. Here, specifically for this question, I think it's okay to just eliminate the possibility for poaching and assume that it requires a motive.

Answer choice A is actually irrelevant to the argument.

Let's say the rhino poaching trade gets really hard one year and most of the discouraged poachers decide not to hunt other animals for horn substitutes. Do you think this is necessary to the argument?

So what if those poachers decide to hunt reindeer instead?

Does that in any way affect the argument that rhinos will survive when the motivation for poaching is gone? No.

[WaltGrace83]

Thanks for the response. However, I am still confused. I just don't see at how you arrive at (1) and (3) supporting (2). I understand the "therefore" test and I would totally be on board with (1) & (3) → (2) argument if it wasn't for the way the argument was phrased.

[BillPackets]

I wasn't so much confused with the argument core as I was butt hurt that I quickly eliminated B bc it seemed out of scope.

I learned my lesson.

[SpiritofFire]

Hmm. Maybe try looking at a similar but different argument?

Excessive eating causes one to gain weight. Therefore, an effective way to keep slim is to drink Spirit Fire Essence, thereby removing all desire to overeat.

One other way to rephrase this is:
Excessive eating causes one to gain weight. Therefore, an effective way to keep slim is to drink Spirit Fire Essence, which would cause removal of all desire to overeat.

In both cases, they both refer to what came before it (drinking Essence). I think they're called prepositions...

You can change up the order of the argument to this as well:
Excessive eating causes one to gain weight. Drinking Spirit Fire Essence, thereby removing all desire to overeat, is therefore an effective way to keep slim.
Excessive eating causes one to gain weight. Drinking Spirit Fire Essence, which would cause removal of all desire to overeat, is therefore an effective way to keep slim.

Now I'm gonna assume that this is how you want to approach it:
Argument: X, thereby removing all desire to overeat.

But that's not a complete thought, just like "X, which causes Y."

[WaltGrace83]

I see what I did perfectly now. Thanks