Critical Reasoning

DanaJ wrote:Source: Beat The GMAT Practice Questions

Wolves can double their numbers every year. They do not do so, however, if the area in which they live is already full and the territory of each pack borders on the territory of other packs on all sides. Lone wolves, unable to establish a territory near their place of origin, disperse to a less desirable habitat and often are hunted by people.

Which of the following conclusions may be properly drawn from the information in the passage above?

A. The number of wolves in any area suitable for wolves may be predicted to quadruple in two years.
B. Wolves are ejected from the pack to wander singly as lone wolves when the number of wolves in the pack has doubled.
C. The amount of territory suitable for wolves has been diminishing in recent years as a result of human encroachment, with a resulting diminution in the wolf population.
D. Wolf hunting can continue at a moderate rate on the fringes of a good habitat for wolves without a decrease in the average yearly wolf population in that territory.
E. The wolf population density in a given area of wolf territory does not vary with the yearly rate of wolf reproduction.

Hey, I had a query:
The question says that the number of wolves can double but they don't do so if the pack is already full.
I don't think this implies that either they will double or they won't reproduce at all. I thought this means that the pack will modify its reproduction rate according to the how full their pack is that moment. Is this extrapolation? Why is it incorrect? Please let me know.
Thanks a lot!

Hi,

I'm having trouble understanding why the answer's not A.

A says is one may predict a quadrupling over 2 years, in a suitable area. (Note: only predict, not for certain).

As the passages says a doubling every year can happen if the conditions of the area are met, surely answer A is the most reasonable deduction?

Many thanks for your help.

Stu.

Hi,

I managed to get it down to A and D rather easily, but couldn't narrow it down any further....
In fact, I'm still not entirely sure that A is wrong /can be eiliminated.

A says 'may predict' - so it's saying it is possible, not certain that the population could quadruple in 2 years. This growth is certainly possible if the wolves reside in a 'suitable area' i.e., I took this to mean free of human threat etc .

Can you please give a bit more of an explanation as to why A can and should be eliminated?

Thanks

The population could quadruple in 2 years, but we cannot make this prediction given that we have the territory issue. It's unclear whether a pack's territory is sufficient to sustain such an increase. However, as you yourself have noted, this could be possible given the right territory. The argument states though that the population can double every year, but not that it is predicted to double every year. To me at least, there's a difference between "having the capacity to" and a prediction that this will indeed occur.

exactly - you're hunting the lone wolves - therefore you're hunting ones that were not going to reproduce anyway.

@amitakalra88: in making a conclusion from the premises presented, much like you would in real life, it's important to note whether a statement is too broad to serve as a conclusion. Conclusions like A and E are broad enough that they can be considered "extreme" if that makes any sense.

A: can we be certain that ANY area suitable for wolves may be predicted to quadruple in two years? The argument specifically indicates that wolves do not double every year if the area in which they live is already full. The emphasis here isn't on the "may be predicted to quadruple" but the "in any area".
"A. The number of wolves in any area suitable for wolves may be predicted to quadruple in two years."

D: if there is "moderate" (this implies the hunting must not be aggressive, such as killing half of the population) hunting, as this statement suggests, on the fringes of a "good habitat for wolves" (this means that the wolves would reproduce at double the rate if there isn't an overcrowding issue), then there would not be a decrease in the average yearly wolf population in that territory (as long as the number of wolves killed is not aggressive, it is within the wolves' reproductive capacity to replenish what's been lost.
"D. Wolf hunting can continue at a moderate rate on the fringes of a good habitat for wolves without a decrease in the average yearly wolf population in that territory."

Giovanni

E sounds better... let me check OA

E would be correct only if the population were already at the max for that territory. If the population is low, it can vary with the reproduction rate.

Awesome question.

+ 1 for D.

Option E states that the population density does not vary with the reproductive rate. That's not supported by the argument. So E is incorrect.

the answeer is D

nice explanation
thanQ

prepgmat09 wrote:Are these questions really representative of GMAT? I have never seen any official question on these lines.

I agree - many of these questions are difficult in order to help us learn, but you are right that alot of them aren't very similar to what I've seen in the OG, same goes for math. and if you download a test on mba.com you'll realize the questions are a bit different. they do their best though to simulate it and it helps you to critically think and analyze, skills that need to be polished before the test.

Is it D?
As only the wolves who fail to establish a territory will be hunted down.

ANSWER: E

Not very sure, but i think the answer is C.