Wolves and human---Explain

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 193
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:53 am
Thanked: 4 times
Followed by:5 members

Wolves and human---Explain

by amysky_0205 » Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:12 am
Wolves generally avoid human settlements. For this reason, domestic sheep, though essentially easy prey for wolves, are not usually attacked by them. In Hylantia prior to 1910, farmers nevertheless lost considerable numbers of sheep to wolves each year. Attributing this to the large number for wolves, in 1910 the government began offering rewards to hunters for killing wolves. From 1910 to 1915, large numbers of wolves were killed. Yet wolf attacks on sheep increased significantly.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain the increase in wolf attacks on sheep?

A. Populations of deer and other wild animals that wolves typically prey on increased significantly in numbers from 1910 to 1915.

B. Prior to 1910, there were no legal restrictions in Hylantia on the hunting of wolves.

C. After 1910 hunters shot and wounded a substantial number of wolves, thereby greatly diminishing these wolves’ ability to prey on wild animals.

D. Domestic sheep are significantly less able than most wild animals to defend themselves against wolf attacks.

E. The systematic hunting of wolves encouraged by the program drove many wolves in Hylantia to migrate to remote mountain areas uninhabited by humans.

OA: C

I narrowed down the answer to C and E.
But chose E instead.

can someone explain why E is wrong and C is better?

thank u!
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 5:03 am
Thanked: 9 times
Followed by:4 members
GMAT Score:700

by shenoydevika » Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:44 am
Hello!

First, break down the question. What are we told?
1. - Wolves avoid human settlements. Therefore, domestic sheep are safe from wolf attacks even though they are easy prey.
2. - However, In H, prior to 1910, farmers lost a lot of sheep to wolf attacks. (awww)
3. - The government believed this was because there were too many wolves. So they started rewarding hunters to kill wolves.

So what would be the logical conclusion for such a policy? The wolf packs would diminish in number and all the sheep would be safe right? But then we are told this...
5. - Even though a large number of wolves were killed, the attack on sheep increased.

We are told to choose the option which would best explain this.

(C) is the best. It says that hunters wounded a lot of wolves. These wounded creatures couldn't hunt in the wild and were forced to attack the domestic sheep. That is why the attack on sheep increased.

Why not E? E says all the hunting drove the wolves away. If the wolves escaped to a place where there were no humans, how would the attacks on sheep in Hylantia increase? E doesn't give us a reasonable explanation for the increase on wolf attacks.

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:33 am
the poster above me has given a pretty nice summary.

to generalize -- always state, as precisely and concisely as possible, exactly what you have to explain before you go digging through the answer choices.
in this problem, what you have to explain is:
why were there more attacks on domesticated sheep?

(c) provides a plausible reason: injured wolves needed an easier target to hunt. the argument explicitly states that domestic sheep are easier targets for wolves, so, there you go.

(e), on the other hand, doesn't explain what has been observed at all. in fact, if the wolves have migrated to remote regions, we would expect fewer attacks on domesticated sheep (who live with human herders) -- exactly the opposite of what was observed.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron