BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Alligator

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Legendary Member
Posts: 510
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2014 2:24 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:5 members

Alligator

by j_shreyans » Wed Sep 03, 2014 4:16 am
Guys ,

Pls help me out with the explanation.


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?

A)Alligators prefer humans to other food sources.

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

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

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

E)Relocating half of the lagoon's alligator population would not be prohibitively expensive.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Legendary Member
Posts: 510
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2014 2:24 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:5 members

by j_shreyans » Wed Sep 03, 2014 10:44 pm
Guys ,

Can you pls help me with the above problem.

Thanks in advance!!!!
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 147
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2014 3:52 pm
Thanked: 53 times
Followed by:21 members

by David@GMATPrepNow » Thu Sep 04, 2014 9:52 am
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.
Top
Moderator
Posts: 426
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 8:48 pm
Followed by:1 members

by BTGmoderatorAT » Fri Sep 08, 2017 8:31 am
Letter B is the best answer..but have some facts to share:

Alligators are more active when temperatures rises-from Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission..Could Weather be to blame here?
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1