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

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

Migrating shorebirds

Expert replies
by ketkoag » Mon Aug 31, 2009 9:06 am
Mayor: Migrating shorebirds stop at our beach just to feed on horseshoe-crab eggs, a phenomenon that attracts tourists. To bring more tourists, the town council plans to undertake a beach reclamation project to double the area available to crabs for nesting.

Birdwatcher: Without a high density of crabs on a beach, migrating shorebirds will go hungry because shorebirds only eat eggs that a crab happens to uncover when it is digging its own nest.

Which of the following, if true, would provide the mayor with the strongest counter to the birdwatcher's objection?

A. Every year a certain percentage of crabs are caught by fishermen as bait for eel traps.
B. Horseshoe crabs are so prolific that given favorable circumstances their numbers increase rapidly.
C. On average, tourists who come to the town in order to watch birds spend more money there than tourists who come for other purposes.
D. The additional land made available by the reclamation project will give migrating shorebirds more space.
E. Some of the migrating shorebirds make only one stop during their migration form South America to Canada.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Crabby Birds Make Happy Tourists

by captainfriend » Mon Aug 31, 2009 10:10 am
This is a question that, upon first read, may seem vaguely illogical and abstruse. The key phrase is this: “shorebirds only eat eggs that a crab happens to uncover when it is digging its own nest,” which means that crabs dig their own nest, and thus accidentally uncover the eggs buried of nearby nests, and this is in fact what brings birds, which in turn brings tourists. This provides the link needed for the birdwatcher’s argument; there must be a dense population of crabs for this accidental uncovering to occur; therefore, increasing the space in which crabs can nest will decrease the density, and decrease the number of accidental uncoverings. This is at the heart of the birdwatcher's argument.

However, there is a key assumption in the birdwatcher's argument: increasing the space for crab nesting will ONLY result in a decrease in crab density IF there is not a proportionate increase in crabs. In other words, if there were double the space, AND DOUBLE THE CRABS, the crab density would remain stable. We'd get more accidental egg uncovering, more birds, and more tourists; the birdwatcher would be wrong in her conclusion, and the mayor right.

Answer choice B reflects this logic, explaining that horseshoe crabs are both “prolific” and that their number increases rapidly given favorable circumstances (such as a beach reclamation project to give them extra space).

The other answer choices are mismatches. Choice A is about decreases, not increases, in crab population (and goes by percentage, which means that this situation would not change even if the population did). Choice C is about money, and far out of scope; the argument is about bringing more tourists, not about bringing more tourist money. Choice D is irrelevant and redundant: crabs have more space, so do birds- so what? Choice E discusses an irrelevant fact that has no direct bearing on the situation; we already know that birds stop here to get eggs, so we can safely assume they will continue to do so.

Following the thread of causation (in this case- crab density :arrow: crabs uncovering eggs :arrow: more birds :arrow: more tourists) is key, here and on many CR questions.

Alex
Knewton Verbal Head
Join the discussion

by gmatmachoman » Mon Aug 31, 2009 11:09 am
Nice explanantion.IMO B!!!
Join the discussion

by srivas » Mon Aug 31, 2009 7:01 pm
Migrating shorebirds stop at our beach just to feed on horseshoe-crab eggs
Without a high density of crabs on a beach, migrating shorebirds will go hungry

from above statements answer is B
Gmat710,, Hyd
Join the discussion

by arorag » Mon Aug 31, 2009 7:56 pm
will go with B
Join the discussion

by mehravikas » Mon Aug 31, 2009 8:26 pm
IMO - B

Nice explanation given above by @captainfriend
Join the discussion

IMO

by helpme_2009 » Mon Aug 31, 2009 9:53 pm
IMO B
mayor- claims the phenomenon in which the shorebirds feed on horseshoe-crab eggs attracts tourists. so to inc this he wants to inc the availble area for inc number of crab . his reasoning is that it will help the shorebirds .

birdwatcher counter this by claiming that inc space will reduce denseity of crab and therefore shorebirds will go hungry.

task is to weak birdwatchers arument.

which is stated in B that the density will not decrease as more space will favor crabs to inc their number.hence density will not be reduced
Join the discussion

by turbo jet » Mon Aug 31, 2009 10:13 pm
IMO: B
Agree with the explanation given by Knewton.
Ans B tells us that crab egg density will not be a problem as pointed by the birdwatcher and hence strengthens.


Cheers
TJ
Life is Tom; I am Jerry ;)
Join the discussion

Re: Crabby Birds Make Happy Tourists

by heshamelaziry » Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:53 pm
captainfriend wrote:This is a question that, upon first read, may seem vaguely illogical and abstruse. The key phrase is this: �shorebirds only eat eggs that a crab happens to uncover when it is digging its own nest,� which means that crabs dig their own nest, and thus accidentally uncover the eggs buried of nearby nests, and this is in fact what brings birds, which in turn brings tourists. This provides the link needed for the birdwatcher�s argument; there must be a dense population of crabs for this accidental uncovering to occur; therefore, increasing the space in which crabs can nest will decrease the density, and decrease the number of accidental uncoverings. This is at the heart of the birdwatcher's argument.

However, there is a key assumption in the birdwatcher's argument: increasing the space for crab nesting will ONLY result in a decrease in crab density IF there is not a proportionate increase in crabs. In other words, if there were double the space, AND DOUBLE THE CRABS, the crab density would remain stable. We'd get more accidental egg uncovering, more birds, and more tourists; the birdwatcher would be wrong in her conclusion, and the mayor right.

Answer choice B reflects this logic, explaining that horseshoe crabs are both �prolific� and that their number increases rapidly given favorable circumstances (such as a beach reclamation project to give them extra space).

The other answer choices are mismatches. Choice A is about decreases, not increases, in crab population (and goes by percentage, which means that this situation would not change even if the population did). Choice C is about money, and far out of scope; the argument is about bringing more tourists, not about bringing more tourist money. Choice D is irrelevant and redundant: crabs have more space, so do birds- so what? Choice E discusses an irrelevant fact that has no direct bearing on the situation; we already know that birds stop here to get eggs, so we can safely assume they will continue to do so.

Following the thread of causation (in this case- crab density :arrow: crabs uncovering eggs :arrow: more birds :arrow: more tourists) is key, here and on many CR questions.

Alex
Knewton Verbal Head
WOW..Really impressive explanation. HOw long did you spend to understand the logic of the question ? Do you know if this is an upper level question because it is difficult to put ideas together ?
Join the discussion

by ketkoag » Wed Sep 02, 2009 4:19 am
thanks captainfriend for ur detailed explanation..
i selected the same answer by using the same logic..
i don't have OA to this ques. but now i am sure that it should be B..
Join the discussion

by gmatmachoman » Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:42 am
cHEERS!!
Join the discussion

by kris77 » Sun May 15, 2016 4:09 pm
Answer B seems to be logical one out of other answer choices
Join the discussion