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

Explanation:

Cherry - picking involves selectively presenting evidence. Here, the passage only focuses on the negative outcome of the limited ivory trade (increase in elephant poaching) without considering other possible factors or aspects. It doesn't reverse causal direction as it clearly shows trade led to poaching. It's not the fallacy of the single cause as it doesn't claim only one cause for the elephant - killing. Post hoc fallacy is about assuming causation just because one event followed another, which isn't the case here.

Answer:

Cherry picking