Question

the movement of the progress bar may be uneven because questions can be worth more or less (including zero) depending on your answer.
read this excerpt from a passage.
unfortunately, saving elephants had a negative economic effect on some people. in 1999, in response to pressure from business interests that were losing money because of the ban on the ivory trade, cites allowed limited trade in stockpiled tusks. ivory that already had been harvested from elephants could once again be bought and sold. but disaster for the african elephant followed. poachers, or illegal hunters, rushed to kill more elephants. many people had foreseen that illegal trading of ivory would flourish again if any trading at all were allowed. following the cites decision, african elephants died in large numbers. a 2014 new york times editorial reported that approximately 30,000 to 35,000 african elephants were killed each year. only a complete ban of the ivory trade can save the african elephant from extinction.
which type of logical fallacy appears in this excerpt?
reversing causal direction
cherry picking
post hoc fallacy
fallacy of the single cause

Explanation:

To determine the logical fallacy, we analyze each option:

• Reversing causal direction: Involves mixing up cause and effect. The excerpt doesn’t do this.
• Cherry picking: Selecting only favorable evidence. The excerpt doesn’t focus on selective evidence.
• Post hoc fallacy: Assumes that because one event followed another, the first caused the second. Here, the excerpt implies the CITES decision (allowing limited trade) caused the increase in elephant deaths, but other factors (like poachers’ motives) could be involved. However, the key is the “after this, therefore because of this” reasoning. Wait, no—wait, the “Fallacy of the single cause” is assuming one cause when there are multiple. Let's re - evaluate:

The excerpt concludes that only a complete ban can save elephants, implying the limited trade (CITES decision) is the sole cause of the deaths. But poaching could be driven by multiple factors (e.g., demand, lack of enforcement). So the fallacy is “Fallacy of the single cause” as it assumes one cause (the limited trade) is the only reason for the elephant deaths, ignoring other potential causes.

• Post hoc fallacy is “after this, therefore because of this”, but here the argument is about a single cause, not just sequence.

Wait, let's re - check definitions:

• Fallacy of the single cause: Assuming a single cause for an outcome when multiple causes are possible. The excerpt says “Only a complete ban of the ivory trade can save the African elephant from extinction”, implying that the limited trade (and its aftermath) is the only cause of the threat, ignoring other factors that could contribute to elephant endangerment (like habitat loss, other human - elephant conflicts).
• Post hoc: Event A happens, then event B happens, so A caused B. The excerpt has the CITES decision, then elephant deaths, but the conclusion is about a single cause, not just sequence.

So the correct fallacy is “Fallacy of the single cause”.

Answer:

Fallacy of the single cause