Critical Reasoning

In a certain wildlife park, park rangers are able to track the movements of many rhinoceroses because those animals wear radio collars. When, as often happens, a collar slips off, it is put back on. Putting a collar on a rhinoceros involves immobilizing the animal by shooting it with a tranquilizer dart. Female rhinoceros that have been frequently recollared have significantly lower fertility rates than uncollared females. Probably, therefore, some substance in the tranquilizer inhibits fertility.

In evaluating the argument, it would be most useful to determine which of the following?

a) Whether there are more collared female rhinoceros than uncollared female rhinoceros in the park
b) How the tranquilizer that is used for immobilizing rhinoceros differ, if at all, from tranquilizers used in working with other large mammals.
c) How often park rangers need to use tranquilizer darts to immobilize rhinoceros for reasons other than attaching radio collars.
d) Whether male rhinoceros in the wild life park lose their collars any more often than the park’s female rhinoceros do
e) Whether radio collars are the only practical means that park rangers have for tracking the movements of rhinoceros in the park

I don't really get this. When you are evaluating the argument, you are supposed to look at the conclusion?? Please explain your reasoning.

IMO C

c) How often park rangers need to use tranquilizer darts to immobilize rhinoceros for reasons other than attaching radio collars.

Say very often then the effect should be same on collared and uncollared rhinoceros and the tranquilizer is not the cause.

Not very often - then definitely the tranquilizer is effecting the fertility in the collared female rhinoceros.

IMO answer is B.

If we were to know that the same tranquilizer that's used on the rhinos also has the same effects (inhibits fertility) when used on other large mammals, then our conclusion that there is something in the tranquilizer that inhibits fertility would be true.

What's the OA?

TSonam wrote:In a certain wildlife park, park rangers are able to track the movements of many rhinoceroses because those animals wear radio collars. When, as often happens, a collar slips off, it is put back on. Putting a collar on a rhinoceros involves immobilizing the animal by shooting it with a tranquilizer dart. Female rhinoceros that have been frequently recollared have significantly lower fertility rates than uncollared females. Probably, therefore, some substance in the tranquilizer inhibits fertility.

In evaluating the argument, it would be most useful to determine which of the following?

a) Whether there are more collared female rhinoceros than uncollared female rhinoceros in the park
b) How the tranquilizer that is used for immobilizing rhinoceros differ, if at all, from tranquilizers used in working with other large mammals.
c) How often park rangers need to use tranquilizer darts to immobilize rhinoceros for reasons other than attaching radio collars.
d) Whether male rhinoceros in the wild life park lose their collars any more often than the park’s female rhinoceros do
e) Whether radio collars are the only practical means that park rangers have for tracking the movements of rhinoceros in the park

I don't really get this. When you are evaluating the argument, you are supposed to look at the conclusion?? Please explain your reasoning.

IMO B.

The conclusion is "there is some substance in the tranquiliser that inhibits fertility". To evaluate this, we need an evidence.

a) Irrevelant.

b) Hold it

c) The frequency of use doesn't talk anytihig about the substance used.

d) Irrevelant.

e) Irrevelant.

By POE, B looks like the answer. If we can evaluate the difference between the tranquiliser used for rhinos and that used for other large mammals. Then we can come to the conclusion, if it has a substance which effects fertiliy.

What is the OA?

PS: Please bear with me for lots of typos.

TSonam wrote:In a certain wildlife park, park rangers are able to track the movements of many rhinoceroses because those animals wear radio collars. When, as often happens, a collar slips off, it is put back on. Putting a collar on a rhinoceros involves immobilizing the animal by shooting it with a tranquilizer dart. Female rhinoceros that have been frequently recollared have significantly lower fertility rates than uncollared females. Probably, therefore, some substance in the tranquilizer inhibits fertility.

In evaluating the argument, it would be most useful to determine which of the following?

a) Whether there are more collared female rhinoceros than uncollared female rhinoceros in the park
b) How the tranquilizer that is used for immobilizing rhinoceros differ, if at all, from tranquilizers used in working with other large mammals.
c) How often park rangers need to use tranquilizer darts to immobilize rhinoceros for reasons other than attaching radio collars.
d) Whether male rhinoceros in the wild life park lose their collars any more often than the park’s female rhinoceros do
e) Whether radio collars are the only practical means that park rangers have for tracking the movements of rhinoceros in the park

I don't really get this. When you are evaluating the argument, you are supposed to look at the conclusion?? Please explain your reasoning.

IMO B.

The conclusion is "there is some substance in the tranquiliser that inhibits fertility". To evaluate this, we need an evidence.

a) Irrevelant.

b) Hold it

c) The frequency of use doesn't talk anytihig about the substance used.

d) Irrevelant.

e) Irrevelant.

By POE, B looks like the answer. If we can evaluate the difference between the tranquiliser used for rhinos and that used for other large mammals. Then we can come to the conclusion, if it has a substance which effects fertiliy.

What is the OA?

PS: Please bear with me for lots of typos.

TSonam wrote:In a certain wildlife park, park rangers are able to track the movements of many rhinoceroses because those animals wear radio collars. When, as often happens, a collar slips off, it is put back on. Putting a collar on a rhinoceros involves immobilizing the animal by shooting it with a tranquilizer dart. Female rhinoceros that have been frequently recollared have significantly lower fertility rates than uncollared females. Probably, therefore, some substance in the tranquilizer inhibits fertility.

In evaluating the argument, it would be most useful to determine which of the following?

a) Whether there are more collared female rhinoceros than uncollared female rhinoceros in the park
b) How the tranquilizer that is used for immobilizing rhinoceros differ, if at all, from tranquilizers used in working with other large mammals.
c) How often park rangers need to use tranquilizer darts to immobilize rhinoceros for reasons other than attaching radio collars.
d) Whether male rhinoceros in the wild life park lose their collars any more often than the park’s female rhinoceros do
e) Whether radio collars are the only practical means that park rangers have for tracking the movements of rhinoceros in the park

I don't really get this. When you are evaluating the argument, you are supposed to look at the conclusion?? Please explain your reasoning.

IMO B.

The conclusion is "there is some substance in the tranquiliser that inhibits fertility". To evaluate this, we need an evidence.

a) Irrevelant.

b) Hold it

c) The frequency of use doesn't talk anytihig about the substance used.

d) Irrevelant.

e) Irrevelant.

By POE, B looks like the answer. If we can evaluate the difference between the tranquiliser used for rhinos and that used for other large mammals. Then we can come to the conclusion, if it has a substance which effects fertiliy.

What is the OA?

PS: Please bear with me for lots of typos.

IMO B. Folks have already provided sufficient explanation.

OA is C

Bmlaud, can you explain your reasoning in a little more detail? I still don't get it.

Thanks.

Interesting, I would have thought C was out of scope. What is the source of the question.

TSonam wrote:OA is C

Bmlaud, can you explain your reasoning in a little more detail? I still don't get it.

Thanks.

"Female rhinoceros that have been frequently recollared have significantly lower fertility rates than uncollared females."

The fertility rates compared are for the same species so option B is ruled out.

The fertility rates differ for collared ones from that of uncollared ones.
The tranqualizer can be the cause of infertility in collared ones if it is proven that tranqualizer is adminstered more often to collared ones and on the other hand it won't be the cause if tranqualizer is administered more often to uncollared ones for reasons other than installing the collar ( say for preventing them from leaving a particular area or for controlling their agression). Option C says that.

I am not good at explaining but I hope the given explanation serves the purpose.

bmlaud wrote:

TSonam wrote:OA is C

Bmlaud, can you explain your reasoning in a little more detail? I still don't get it.

Thanks.

"Female rhinoceros that have been frequently recollared have significantly lower fertility rates than uncollared females."

The fertility rates compared are for the same species so option B is ruled out.

The fertility rates differ for collared ones from that of uncollared ones.
The tranqualizer can be the cause of infertility in collared ones if it is proven that tranqualizer is adminstered more often to collared ones and on the other hand it won't be the cause if tranqualizer is administered more often to uncollared ones for reasons other than installing the collar ( say for preventing them from leaving a particular area or for controlling their agression). Option C says that.

I am not good at explaining but I hope the given explanation serves the purpose.

It do have served the purpose. Good question and very close options.

B looks better than other options