Critical Reasoning

Hi j_shreyans,

The correct answer is B. Let's look at the answers in detail, given that we're looking for something to support the the idea that relocating alligators will reduce the number of attacks on humans.

A) Alligators prefer humans to other food sources.

Eliminate A. This answer makes a statement about the diet preference of alligators, which seems to suggest that they will preferentially attack humans to eat them. But there might be many reasons why alligators attack humans, unrelated to trying to eat them. For example, fear of humans, protecting their young, defending their territory, etc.

B) There is a correlation between the size of the alligator population and the incidence of alligator attacks on humans.

This is the answer we are after. MORE alligators is correlated with MORE attacks. Therefore it makes sense that if you remove half the alligators, you will reduce the number of attacks, which is the argument we are looking to support.

C) In recent years, there has been no significant change in the size of the alligator population in the Blue Lagoon.

Eliminate C. This answer actually undermines the argument we are looking to support, for the same reasons that B supports it. If there has been no change in the size of the population of alligators, something else is causing the increase in alligator attacks.

D) Not all alligator attacks on humans are reported to authorities.

Eliminate D. This answer doesn't support the argument that moving half the population of alligators will reduce the number of attacks. It just says that there are more attacks than we know about.

E) Relocating half of the lagoon's alligator population would not be prohibitively expensive.

Eliminate E. Expense has nothing to do with the argument. It is not an issue that the passage deals with one way or another.