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

Redeem

Why this option is incorrect?

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:08 am
Location: INDIA
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

Why this option is incorrect?

by dextar » Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:11 pm
Human beings are highly destructive predators. We have devastated the conch population of the West Indian Barrier reef region , brought the North American caribou to the verge of extinction and nearly wiped out the mountains lion native to Appolo Hills. Legislation could be enacted to prohibit killing mountain lions, but even if the law could be enforced effectively , the mountain lions would become extinct anyway, and the blame would still be ours.

Which of the following provides the most logical explanation of the apparent paradox?

1) Hunters throughout the Appolo regions are resentful of what they consider to be government intrusion and will try to circumvent a law.
2) The mountain lion is not native to Appolo Hills and plays no essential role in total environment of that area.
3) The problems with the conch population and North American caribou are distinct and cannot be usefully compared with the problems of the mountain lion.
4) Because of the increased human populations, mountain lions no longer have the large territories they need to hunt adequate number of preys.
5) The natural evolution of the region rather than the intrusions of the human beings, has been responsible for the decline of the lions in the mountain region

I chose 5 because the natural evolution of the region is decimating the population of lions and humans are wrongly blamed. Hence it is explaining the paradox?
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 9:16 am

by ritu_gmat » Sun Mar 30, 2008 3:51 am
my answer is 4.
What is OA
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 423
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 1:29 am
Location: Hyderabad, India
Thanked: 36 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:770

by simplyjat » Sun Mar 30, 2008 3:57 am
dexter wrote:humans are wrongly blamed
Humans are not wrongly blamed in the passage
simplyjat
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3225
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:40 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 1710 times
Followed by:614 members
GMAT Score:800

by Stuart@KaplanGMAT » Sun Mar 30, 2008 10:38 am
We want to resolve a paradox. First, we need to ID the paradox.

The author says that even if we were to stop killing the lions, they would still die and humans would be at fault.

(5) would explain why lions would die anyway, but NOT why humans would be at fault. If anything, (5) absolves us of blame.

(4), on the other hand, tells us why the lions would still die AND places the blame firmly on humans; even if we no longer actively hunt the lions, our expansion into their territories will kill them in the end.
Image

Stuart Kovinsky | Kaplan GMAT Faculty | Toronto

Kaplan Exclusive: The Official Test Day Experience | Ready to Take a Free Practice Test? | Kaplan/Beat the GMAT Member Discount
BTG100 for $100 off a full course
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:46 am
Thanked: 27 times
GMAT Score:570

by reply2spg » Mon Aug 02, 2010 9:37 pm
4 is better here.
dextar wrote:Human beings are highly destructive predators. We have devastated the conch population of the West Indian Barrier reef region , brought the North American caribou to the verge of extinction and nearly wiped out the mountains lion native to Appolo Hills. Legislation could be enacted to prohibit killing mountain lions, but even if the law could be enforced effectively , the mountain lions would become extinct anyway, and the blame would still be ours.

Which of the following provides the most logical explanation of the apparent paradox?

1) Hunters throughout the Appolo regions are resentful of what they consider to be government intrusion and will try to circumvent a law.
2) The mountain lion is not native to Appolo Hills and plays no essential role in total environment of that area.
3) The problems with the conch population and North American caribou are distinct and cannot be usefully compared with the problems of the mountain lion.
4) Because of the increased human populations, mountain lions no longer have the large territories they need to hunt adequate number of preys.
5) The natural evolution of the region rather than the intrusions of the human beings, has been responsible for the decline of the lions in the mountain region

I chose 5 because the natural evolution of the region is decimating the population of lions and humans are wrongly blamed. Hence it is explaining the paradox?
Sudhanshu
(have lot of things to learn from all of you)
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 134
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 5:22 am
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:2 members

by gmatusa2010 » Mon Aug 02, 2010 9:58 pm
Stuart,

Why can't it be 1? I thought the paradox is: "even if the law could be enforced effectively , the mountain lions would become extinct anyway, and the blame would still be ours."

Doesn't 1 explain why they lions will die anyways (because people will continue to kill) and we are still blame because they die because of human?
Stuart Kovinsky wrote:We want to resolve a paradox. First, we need to ID the paradox.

The author says that even if we were to stop killing the lions, they would still die and humans would be at fault.

(5) would explain why lions would die anyway, but NOT why humans would be at fault. If anything, (5) absolves us of blame.

(4), on the other hand, tells us why the lions would still die AND places the blame firmly on humans; even if we no longer actively hunt the lions, our expansion into their territories will kill them in the end.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 385
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:16 pm
Thanked: 29 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:710

by debmalya_dutta » Tue Aug 03, 2010 4:36 am
Why cannot A be the right answer ?

1)Hunters throughout the Appolo regions are resentful of what they consider to be government intrusion and will try to circumvent a law.

Circumvent the law = bypass the law ... So that means that even if government legislation is enforced , the hunting will result in the gradual decrease in the mountain lion numbers and hence the blame will still be ours ...

But then I agree with E too..
5) The natural evolution of the region rather than the intrusions of the human beings, has been responsible for the decline of the lions in the mountain region
This would mean that it is not humans who are responsible for the decrease in the mountain lion numbers but something else
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3225
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:40 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 1710 times
Followed by:614 members
GMAT Score:800

by Stuart@KaplanGMAT » Tue Aug 03, 2010 11:15 am
debmalya_dutta wrote:Why cannot A be the right answer ?

1)Hunters throughout the Appolo regions are resentful of what they consider to be government intrusion and will try to circumvent a law.

Circumvent the law = bypass the law ... So that means that even if government legislation is enforced , the hunting will result in the gradual decrease in the mountain lion numbers and hence the blame will still be ours ...

But then I agree with E too..
5) The natural evolution of the region rather than the intrusions of the human beings, has been responsible for the decline of the lions in the mountain region
This would mean that it is not humans who are responsible for the decrease in the mountain lion numbers but something else
If (1) had said "they will successfully circumvent the law", it could be the answer. However, it says they will "try to circumvent the law", which isn't the same thing.

More importantly, the conclusion of the stimulus is qualified:
but even if the law could be enforced effectively
.

Since the final statement is predicated on effective enforcement, whether some people will try to get around the law is irrelevant.
Image

Stuart Kovinsky | Kaplan GMAT Faculty | Toronto

Kaplan Exclusive: The Official Test Day Experience | Ready to Take a Free Practice Test? | Kaplan/Beat the GMAT Member Discount
BTG100 for $100 off a full course
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 134
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 5:22 am
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:2 members

by gmatusa2010 » Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:10 pm
Stuart,

I've seen many answer choices like these where the choice contradicts a fact presented in the premise (rather than explain it further to point out it overlooked something). Are there rules for this? Had this been a strengthener or an inference question, contradicting facts in the answer choice is superseded by info in the stimulus?

Stuart Kovinsky wrote:
debmalya_dutta wrote:Why cannot A be the right answer ?

1)Hunters throughout the Appolo regions are resentful of what they consider to be government intrusion and will try to circumvent a law.

Circumvent the law = bypass the law ... So that means that even if government legislation is enforced , the hunting will result in the gradual decrease in the mountain lion numbers and hence the blame will still be ours ...

But then I agree with E too..
5) The natural evolution of the region rather than the intrusions of the human beings, has been responsible for the decline of the lions in the mountain region
This would mean that it is not humans who are responsible for the decrease in the mountain lion numbers but something else
If (1) had said "they will successfully circumvent the law", it could be the answer. However, it says they will "try to circumvent the law", which isn't the same thing.

More importantly, the conclusion of the stimulus is qualified:
but even if the law could be enforced effectively
.

Since the final statement is predicated on effective enforcement, whether some people will try to get around the law is irrelevant.
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3225
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:40 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 1710 times
Followed by:614 members
GMAT Score:800

by Stuart@KaplanGMAT » Wed Aug 04, 2010 8:43 am
gmatusa2010 wrote:Stuart,

I've seen many answer choices like these where the choice contradicts a fact presented in the premise (rather than explain it further to point out it overlooked something). Are there rules for this? Had this been a strengthener or an inference question, contradicting facts in the answer choice is superseded by info in the stimulus?

Hi,

in a valid strengthen/weaken/assumption/flaw/explain question, an answer choice will never contradict a fact presented in the evidence (the question type on which this may happen is inference questions (and the big difference there is that for str/wkn/ass'n questions, the question stem almost always contains "which of the following, if true, ...", while inference questions speak of the statements above being true, not the choices)).

In this question, for instance, the stimulus doesn't state "the law can be enforced effectively" - it's simply predicated on the condition "if the law could be enforced effectively".

Further, (1) doesn't say that those hunters will circumvent the law, just that they'll try to circumvent the law.

If it looks like an answer is contradicting a fact in the stimulus, then 1 of 3 things has happened:

1) you've misinterpreted the evidence;
2) you've misinterpreted the answer; or
3) you're working with an invalid question.[/quote]
Image

Stuart Kovinsky | Kaplan GMAT Faculty | Toronto

Kaplan Exclusive: The Official Test Day Experience | Ready to Take a Free Practice Test? | Kaplan/Beat the GMAT Member Discount
BTG100 for $100 off a full course
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1