alligator population

[maihuna]

Parland's alligator population has been declining in recent years, primarily because of hunting. Alligators prey heavily on a species of freshwater fish that is highly valued as food by Parlanders, who had hoped that the decline in the alligator population would lead to an increase in the numbers of these fish available for human consumption. Yet the population of this fish species has also declined, even though the annual number caught for human consumption has not increased.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain the decline in the population of the fish species?
A. The decline in the alligator population has meant that fishers can work in some parts of lakes and rivers that were formerly too dangerous.
B. Over the last few years, Parland's commercial fishing enterprises have increased the number of fishing boats they use.
C. Many Parlanders who hunt alligators do so because of the high market price of alligator skins, not because of the threat alligators pose to the fish population.
D. During Parland's dry season, holes dug by alligators remain filled with water long enough to provide a safe place for the eggs of this fish species to hatch.
E. In several neighboring countries through which Parland's rivers also flow, alligators are at risk of extinction as a result of extensive hunting.
Answer[spoiler][/spoiler]

[scoobydooby]

would go with D, as it gives a reason why there might be a positive correlation between the decline in the number of alligators and the fish

A, B, C and E are out of scope.

[SYim]

IMO D

[kabirmohammed]

IMO C

[gmatmachoman]

would go with D, as it gives a reason why there might be a positive correlation between the decline in the number of alligators and the fish

A, B, C and E are out of scope.

IMO B

D quotes only for the "dry season" but the argument talks about few years....

Isn't B fix the issue?

[Testluv]

Because it uses the word "explain", we can tell from the question stem (which we should always read first) that this is a paradox question (@gmatmachoman: in paradox question, the stimulus does not present an argument; instead the stimulus presents 2 or more facts out of whose combination arises a paradox).

In paradox questions, we look for a contrast keyword such as "yet", "but", "however" etc. Such a word will center the paradox; oftentimes by putting the fact that comes before "yet" together with the fact that comes after "yet" we will grip the paradox.

Another term for "paradox" is just "surprise".

If we look at the stimulus, we see the first word of the last sentence is "yet". Therefore, we can comprehend the paradox by contrasting the fact that comes before "yet" against the fact that comes after "yet". The paradox is: the alligators eat the fish and yet when the Parlanders kill the alligators there are fewer (not more) fish! This is indeed surprising.

Now, we go to the answer choices searching for one that will resolve the paradox, relieve our surprise.

Choice D resolves the paradox: it tells us that, by killing off the alligators, the Parlanders are actually decreasing the likelihood that the fish eggs will hatch. (The alligators dig holes that allow the fisheggs to thrive; ironically, the alligators help to sustain the fish population, even though they themselves eat the fish).

[Focus_gmat]

Testluv,

Could you please help me understand why A is incorrect.

[Testluv]

Testluv,

Could you please help me understand why A is incorrect.

Sure.

Well, the paradox is: why the heck is the fish population declining when the Parlanders are killing off alligators which eat the fish? Shouldn't the fish population then be increasing? This is the paradox, the surprise. We have to find an answer choice that explains this paradox. When looking at each answer choice in a paradox question, you have to ask yourself: Does this take care of it? Does this choice make me no longer wonder? Does it relieve my surprise, does it resolve the paradox?

Choice A doesn't come close to resolving this paradox; instead, it points out that, from killing off some of the alligators, the fishers have enjoyed a benefit--namely, they can work in places where it was previously too dangerous to work. How does this help in explaining why the fish population is declining?....It doesn't help at all-- in fact, the choice A doesn't even talk about fish. Thus, we are still wondering about the paradox.

[gmatmachoman]

@ Testluv:
Choice D resolves the paradox: it tells us that, by killing off the alligators, the Parlanders are actually decreasing the likelihood that the fish eggs will hatch. (The alligators dig holes that allow the fisheggs to thrive; ironically, the alligators help to sustain the fish population, even though they themselves eat the fish)

But what abt B??

B. Over the last few years, Parland’s commercial fishing enterprises have increased the number of fishing boats they use.

Reasoning: SInce number of fishing boats have increased it could have increased the number of fish being caught ,thereby reducing its count..

Is that not right??

Yeah I agree that D tries to link up the stated facts in the argument whereas B altogether brings in a new version to resolve the "surprise".

Plz do post your line of reasoning. I agree its easy to find a reason for a right answer rather finding a wrong reason for a
wrong one...(Deepak..that was ur fav Quote")

[DanaJ]

Received a PM.

@gamtmachoman: The fact that they have increased the number of boats might have an impact on the fish population, but we are straightforwardly told that this is not the case. Check out this excerpt from the stimulus:

Yet the population of this fish species has also declined, even though the annual number caught for human consumption has not increased.

The bolded part should help highlight why your reasoning is incorrect.

[gmatmachoman]

Received a PM.

@gamtmachoman: The fact that they have increased the number of boats might have an impact on the fish population, but we are straightforwardly told that this is not the case. Check out this excerpt from the stimulus:

Yet the population of this fish species has also declined, even though the annual number caught for human consumption has not increased.

The bolded part should help highlight why your reasoning is incorrect.

Seems convincing....Agreed!!

[joseph32]

I believe the answer should be B