Question

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?
o cherry picking
o post hoc fallacy
o fallacy of the single cause
o reversing causal direction

Explanation:

The text presents a situation where a limited trade in stockpiled tusks (CITES - allowed limited trade) led to an increase in elephant killings. The fallacy here is that the argument assumes a single cause (the limited trade) for the increase in elephant deaths, ignoring other potential factors. This is characteristic of the "fallacy of the single cause" which wrongly attributes an outcome to just one cause when there could be multiple.

Answer:

Fallacy of the single cause