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

Redeem

people killed by alligators

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 6:07 pm
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

people killed by alligators

by mmon » Wed Jan 27, 2010 4:29 am
In the past year, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of people killed by alligators in Florida. During this same time, there has been an increase in the development of new houses, golf courses, and shopping areas in former wilderness areas within the state. Therefore, the increase in fatal alligator attacks must have been caused by the increase in the number of humans living in the alligator's habitat.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls into question the explanation above?

A. Two years ago, a government initiative to reduce the alligator population size by destroying alligator eggs ended.
B. An increase in fatal alligator attacks tends to make people more cautious around lakes, ponds, swamps and canals.
C. The number of people killed by snake bites, spider bites and scorpion stings in Florida has held steady for many years.
D. Many of the new state residents have moved to newly constructed areas near water that is suitable for habitation by alligators.
E. The undeveloped areas of Florida have decreased in area by 5% in the past year.

OA is A, why not B ?
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Community Manager
Posts: 1537
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 6:10 pm
Thanked: 653 times
Followed by:252 members

by papgust » Wed Jan 27, 2010 4:38 am
This is a weaken question. IMO, B neither weakens nor strengthens the argument. The argument is increase in fatal alligator attacks are caused by the increase in humans living in alligator's habitat.

A here states the alternate cause saying that destroying alligator eggs ended two years ago, which means that there is an increase in alligator population for the past two years and so do the number of attacks on humans. Hence it weakens.
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1560
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 2:38 am
Thanked: 137 times
Followed by:5 members

by thephoenix » Wed Jan 27, 2010 4:43 am
mmon wrote:In the past year, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of people killed by alligators in Florida. During this same time, there has been an increase in the development of new houses, golf courses, and shopping areas in former wilderness areas within the state. Therefore, the increase in fatal alligator attacks must have been caused by the increase in the number of humans living in the alligator's habitat.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls into question the explanation above?

A. Two years ago, a government initiative to reduce the alligator population size by destroying alligator eggs ended.
B. An increase in fatal alligator attacks tends to make people more cautious around lakes, ponds, swamps and canals.
C. The number of people killed by snake bites, spider bites and scorpion stings in Florida has held steady for many years.
D. Many of the new state residents have moved to newly constructed areas near water that is suitable for habitation by alligators.
E. The undeveloped areas of Florida have decreased in area by 5% in the past year.

OA is A, why not B ?
in order to weaken the argument in a cause and effect relationship one way is to find alt cause.
here
conclusion is the increase in fatal alligator attacks must have been caused by the increase in the number of humans living in the alligator's habitat.
cause identified is increase in the number of humans living in the alligator's habitat.
to weaken we need to find alt cause
a) this option says that the programme for reducing population of aligator has endded two years back hence there are chances that the pop of aligator is inc and therefore the incidents are rising
hence its providing an alt cause....
correct

however B) is opposing the conclusion its says that people are cuatious so there should but lesser fatal incidents but the truth is incidents are higher...
hth
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 777
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:02 am
Location: Mumbai, India
Thanked: 117 times
Followed by:47 members

by komal » Wed Jan 27, 2010 8:52 am
Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls into question the explanation above?

A. Two years ago, a government initiative to reduce the alligator population size by destroying alligator eggs ended.
CORRECT : It shows an alternate cause (increase in alligator population) to the stated effect (increase in number of ppl killed)

B. An increase in fatal alligator attacks tends to make people more cautious around lakes, ponds, swamps and canals.
INCORRECT : This strengthens the conclusion. If ppl were more cautious it could possibly lead to decrease in the number of ppl killed

C. The number of people killed by snake bites, spider bites and scorpion stings in Florida has held steady for many years.
INCORRECT : out of scope..... ppl killed by snake - spider - scorpion bites / stings got nothing to do with ppl killed by alligators.

D. Many of the new state residents have moved to newly constructed areas near water that is suitable for habitation by alligators.
INCORRECT : irrelevant.... moving to such areas has nothing to with alligator attacks ....

E. The undeveloped areas of Florida have decreased in area by 5% in the past year.
INCORRECT : clearly out of scope
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 3:50 pm

by Amiman » Wed Jan 27, 2010 2:57 pm
I think B is a better answer than A.

The fact is increase in fatal allegator attacks. The explanation provided behind the increase is Human encroachment/establishment in allegator's area.
The question to attack the above explanation should be an explanation which indicates either Human encroachment(even if happens) doesn't lead to the increase in fatal attack or Human encroachment hasn't happened at all for some reason.

Option A says due to removal of the law, allegator population can potentially increase but that never questions the explanation that Human encroachment is not the reason.

Option B categorically says that there is an increase in fatal attack(present tense)..Consequently ppl became cautious and that means ppl will not establish in allegator's area(which is the explanation provided for the cause)..
Note it doesn't mean that ppl will never come to allegators to see..If that's the case then in the first place only increase of fatal attack would not have taken place after 4-5 incidents max.

Other options are irrelevant.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 173
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: Hyderabad
Thanked: 12 times

by vijay_venky » Thu Jan 28, 2010 10:08 pm
P1. Dramatic increase in killings by the alligators in the past year.
P2. Increase in the development activities in the former wilderness during the same time.
Conclusion : P2 causes P1.

Typical misinterpretation question where we need an option looking at opposing the cause-effect.

Different possibilities
1. P1 caused by a different reason other than P2.
2. P2 does not cause P1
3. another different event causes both P1 and P2.

A- Typical example of 1
B- Though luring, states the effects of fatal alligator attacks. Means structurally P1 causes some other thing, which is not in the scope of the argument.
C- Other attacks remain steady, may be for scores of different reasons could not possibly be used to compare to the alligator attacks.
D- Strengthens the argument
E- underdeveloped areas are not the focus of the argument.
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1275
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:13 pm
Location: Arabian Sea
Thanked: 125 times
Followed by:2 members

by ajith » Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:03 am
mmon wrote:In the past year, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of people killed by alligators in Florida. During this same time, there has been an increase in the development of new houses, golf courses, and shopping areas in former wilderness areas within the state. Therefore, the increase in fatal alligator attacks must have been caused by the increase in the number of humans living in the alligator's habitat.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls into question the explanation above?

A. Two years ago, a government initiative to reduce the alligator population size by destroying alligator eggs ended.
B. An increase in fatal alligator attacks tends to make people more cautious around lakes, ponds, swamps and canals.
C. The number of people killed by snake bites, spider bites and scorpion stings in Florida has held steady for many years.
D. Many of the new state residents have moved to newly constructed areas near water that is suitable for habitation by alligators.
E. The undeveloped areas of Florida have decreased in area by 5% in the past year

OA is A, why not B ?
The argument is development in former wilderness areas is the reason for increased alligator attacks

A. Gives an alternate explanation of increase in alligator attacks and if it is true it questions the argument
B. As a result of the increased attacks people are cautious - nothing is there to question the argument
C. Not very related
D. Gives an explanation of increase in attack but it will support the main argument if it is true
E. Gives factual evidence in favor of the argument

Hence A
Always borrow money from a pessimist, he doesn't expect to be paid back.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 6:07 pm
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

by mmon » Fri Jan 29, 2010 8:57 pm
Thanks guys for all your explanations
Top
User avatar
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 12:45 am
Thanked: 3 times

by josh_nsit » Sun Dec 29, 2013 7:33 pm
ajith wrote:
mmon wrote:In the past year, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of people killed by alligators in Florida. During this same time, there has been an increase in the development of new houses, golf courses, and shopping areas in former wilderness areas within the state. Therefore, the increase in fatal alligator attacks must have been caused by the increase in the number of humans living in the alligator's habitat.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls into question the explanation above?

A. Two years ago, a government initiative to reduce the alligator population size by destroying alligator eggs ended.
B. An increase in fatal alligator attacks tends to make people more cautious around lakes, ponds, swamps and canals.
C. The number of people killed by snake bites, spider bites and scorpion stings in Florida has held steady for many years.
D. Many of the new state residents have moved to newly constructed areas near water that is suitable for habitation by alligators.
E. The undeveloped areas of Florida have decreased in area by 5% in the past year

OA is A, why not B ?
The argument is development in former wilderness areas is the reason for increased alligator attacks

A. Gives an alternate explanation of increase in alligator attacks and if it is true it questions the argument
B. As a result of the increased attacks people are cautious - nothing is there to question the argument
C. Not very related
D. Gives an explanation of increase in attack but it will support the main argument if it is true
E. Gives factual evidence in favor of the argument
Hence A
How does E support the argument? If the undeveloped areas of Florida decreases in area by 5% in the past year, then alligator population should also decrease. Isn't it?
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 359
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:37 am
Location: Kolkata, India
Thanked: 50 times
Followed by:2 members

by Abhishek009 » Mon Dec 30, 2013 6:44 am
mmon wrote:In the past year, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of people killed by alligators in Florida. During this same time, there has been an increase in the development of new houses, golf courses, and shopping areas in former wilderness areas within the state. Therefore, the increase in fatal alligator attacks must have been caused by the increase in the number of humans living in the alligator's habitat.
Increase in death by alligator attack------ Increase in development of human habitation in those areas.

Hence concludes that attacks are due to the reason that human have started living in aligators habitat.


We can assume that people have chosen to live in areas which was earlier occupied by Alligators.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls into question the explanation above?

A. Two years ago, a government initiative to reduce the alligator population size by destroying alligator eggs ended.

Seems good , but the statement mentions about eggs only what about the adults...

Keep it aside and check the other answers..

B. An increase in fatal alligator attacks tends to make people more cautious around lakes, ponds, swamps and canals.

Then how does to attack the conclusion ? IF people are cautious of alligator attack then why do they venture around those areas prone to alligator attacks ?

Not a good option..

C. The number of people killed by snake bites, spider bites and scorpion stings in Florida has held steady for many years.

We are not interested in snake bites, spider bites and scorpion stings , we only want alligators to attack us ...

D. Many of the new state residents have moved to newly constructed areas near water that is suitable for habitation by alligators.

So , they are more vulnerable to be attacked by alligators , this statement support the conclusion..

E. The undeveloped areas of Florida have decreased in area by 5% in the past year.

Ok , we accept that underdeveloped areas have been reduced but how can we relate it to alligator attacks on Human ???


Out of the given option only option (A) seems better than the rest....
Abhishek
Top
Moderator
Posts: 426
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 8:48 pm
Followed by:1 members

by BTGmoderatorAT » Tue Aug 29, 2017 9:28 am
A. Two years ago, a government initiative to reduce the alligator population size by destroying alligator eggs ended.

ending this program simply means alligator population increases..Is it safe to say that more alligators, then more possible attacks are likely to happen?
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1