Critical Reasoning

A staffer at an environmental research organization recently compared the number of deaths of a rare fish kept in captivity with the number of deaths of the same species in a lake in the wild. Once a week the staffer would note the number of fish that had perished in both habitats. The data reflect, over a one-year period, that 33 of these rare fish died in captivity although more than 150 fish died in the wild. Thus, the staffer concluded it is far more dangerous for this species of fish to live in the wild than to be subjected to the stresses of captivity.

Which of the following statistical procedures would best reveal the possible flaw in the conclusion above?

A) comparing death rates per thousand fish kept in captivity with the death rates per thousand fish in the wild
B) identifying the difference between the number of perished fish during this one year period with the number that perished during the previous year
C) including data on the number of fish that were once in captivity but later released in the wild
D) discriminating between deaths because of a sudden drop in water temperature and those caused by illness in each habitat
E) comparing the death rates of fish whose deaths result from old age with those whose deaths are caused by predators in each habitat
Here, conclusion is, "it is far more dangerous for this species of fish to live in the wild than to be subjected to the stresses of captivity." And we have to find the flaw in it, right?
So wht could it be? Did not get logic behind it. Please explain.

gayu wrote:A staffer at an environmental research organization recently compared the number of deaths of a rare fish kept in captivity with the number of deaths of the same species in a lake in the wild. Once a week the staffer would note the number of fish that had perished in both habitats. The data reflect, over a one-year period, that 33 of these rare fish died in captivity although more than 150 fish died in the wild. Thus, the staffer concluded it is far more dangerous for this species of fish to live in the wild than to be subjected to the stresses of captivity.

Which of the following statistical procedures would best reveal the possible flaw in the conclusion above?

A) comparing death rates per thousand fish kept in captivity with the death rates per thousand fish in the wild
B) identifying the difference between the number of perished fish during this one year period with the number that perished during the previous year
C) including data on the number of fish that were once in captivity but later released in the wild
D) discriminating between deaths because of a sudden drop in water temperature and those caused by illness in each habitat
E) comparing the death rates of fish whose deaths result from old age with those whose deaths are caused by predators in each habitat
Here, conclusion is, "it is far more dangerous for this species of fish to live in the wild than to be subjected to the stresses of captivity." And we have to find the flaw in it, right?
So wht could it be? Did not get logic behind it. Please explain.

Conclusion :- it is far more dangerous for this species of fish to live in the wild than to be subjected to the stresses of captivity.

Conclusion drawn from the data that 150 died in wild and only 33 died in captivity.

Flaw :- We don't know out of which 150 died in wild and out of which 33 died in captivity.
May be out of 150000, 150 died in wild and out of 50, 33 died in captivity.

So A is the clear Winner!!
Apart from the A all other options emphasis on how fish died not on the danger associated with the habitat.

So IMO A, what is the OA

Oh...now i got it..
Thank you so much calvin!!
well my answer was D...

But the flaw u stated really clicked me..I was not able to find wht cud be the flaw.