gmatnmein2010 wrote:Ecologist: The incidence of alligator attacks on humans in the vicinity of the Blue Lagoon has increased in recent years. Relocating at least half of the Blue Lagoon's alligator population would help decrease the incidence of alligator attacks on humans.

The ecologist's claim relies on which of the following assumptions?


1)Alligators prefer humans to other food sources.
alligators' preference is out of scope

2)There is a correlation between the size of the alligator population and the incidence of alligator attacks on humans.
3)In recent years, there has been no significant change in the size of the alligator population in the Blue Lagoon.
opposes the conclusion


4)Not all alligator attacks on humans are reported to authorities.
irrelevant:does not address the relationship between the alligator population and the incidence of attacks

5)Relocating half of the lagoon's alligator population would not be prohibitively expensive.
The expense associated with relocating the alligators is out of scope

imo B

conclusion: moving atleast half the population will decrease the attacks.
Premise: alligator attacks on humans have increased.

Assumption: alligator attacks is proportional to the population. [this can be found using rogue element approach]

1)Alligators prefer humans to other food sources.[if they prefer humans, what is the guarantee that the attacks would decrease? Eliminated!]


2)There is a correlation between the size of the alligator population and the incidence of alligator attacks on humans. [correctly hits the assumption we have made. perfect. My answer!]


3)In recent years, there has been no significant change in the size of the alligator population in the Blue Lagoon. [ let there be no significant change. but how does this bring the conclusion that reducing the population will reduce the attacks? Eliminated!]


4)Not all alligator attacks on humans are reported to authorities. [let them not be reported. so can we say reducing the population reduces the attacks? Elimianted!]


5)Relocating half of the lagoon’s alligator population would not be prohibitively expensive. [ where is cost discussed in the stimulus. the assumption acts as a bridge between premise and conclusion. when price is not discussed in the stimulus itself, how can assp have cost? Elimianted!]

Hope this helps!

gmatnmein2010 wrote:Ecologist: The incidence of alligator attacks on humans in the vicinity of the Blue Lagoon has increased in recent years. Relocating at least half of the Blue Lagoon's alligator population would help decrease the incidence of alligator attacks on humans.

The ecologist's claim relies on which of the following assumptions?


1)Alligators prefer humans to other food sources.


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


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


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


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

This question has been discussed not so long ago. Here's the link :

https://www.beatthegmat.com/people-kille ... 51120.html