Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized for You
we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Track Your Progress
every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance
Practice Pays
we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Application deadlines are just around the corner, so now’s the time to start studying for the GMAT! Start today and save 25% on your GMAT prep. Valid until May 30th.
After a string of bear attacks, the town of Salmon Falls decided
[#permalink]
Show Tags
27 Nov 2018, 06:13
2
15
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
95% (hard)
Question Stats:
25% (01:53) correct 75% (02:04) wrong based on 300 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
After a string of bear attacks, the town of Salmon Falls decided to close its garbage processing center located on the outskirts of town and move its refuse to a new processing location on an island located three miles offshore. Over the past two years, 30 residents of Salmon Falls were victims of bear attacks, but in the two months since the garbage processing center was moved no bear attacks were reported. Clearly, moving the processing center offshore has made it less likely that residents of Salmon Falls will be attacked by bears.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the claim made above?
A. The number of bear attacks is in a given area is directly proportional to the frequency of human-bear encounters in that area. B. Due to budgetary constraints, Salmon Falls had to cancel its public safety campaign on how to prevent bear attacks. C. Bears generally hibernate for up to five months every year. D. A number of the bears that lived near Salmon Falls were relocated last year. E. Most of the bear attacks over the past two years occurred because a resident had startled an unsuspecting bear.
Re: After a string of bear attacks, the town of Salmon Falls decided
[#permalink]
Show Tags
27 Nov 2018, 14:38
1
The first option (A) is a direct consequence of the move of the garbage processing center, thus confirms the conclusion of the statement. The second option (B) strengthens the claim, because, logically by cancelling the public safety campaign on how to prevent bear attacks should lead to an increase of attacks.
Re: After a string of bear attacks, the town of Salmon Falls decided
[#permalink]
Show Tags
27 Nov 2018, 16:26
1
1
A public safety campaign on how to prevent bear attacks could have also resulted in decreased bear attacks. Removing this from the equation, means that the decrease in bear attacks was only a result of the facility relocation.
After a string of bear attacks, the town of Salmon Falls decided
[#permalink]
Show Tags
29 Nov 2018, 06:54
UTN wrote:
After a string of bear attacks, the town of Salmon Falls decided to close its garbage processing center located on the outskirts of town and move its refuse to a new processing location on an island located three miles offshore. Over the past two years, 30 residents of Salmon Falls were victims of bear attacks, but in the two months since the garbage processing center was moved no bear attacks were reported. Clearly, moving the processing center offshore has made it less likely that residents of Salmon Falls will be attacked by bears.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the claim made above?
A. The number of bear attacks is in a given area is directly proportional to the frequency of human-bear encounters in that area. B. Due to budgetary constraints, Salmon Falls had to cancel its public safety campaign on how to prevent bear attacks. C. Bears generally hibernate for up to five months every year. D. A number of the bears that lived near Salmon Falls were relocated last year. E. Most of the bear attacks over the past two years occurred because a resident had startled an unsuspecting bear.
when we strengthen any argument we always try to fill the loop holes by making our argument airtight. also when we strengthen we show only given cause can produce given effect.
ALSO BY STATING NO ANY CAUSE PRODUCES THIS EFFECT WE CAN MAKE OUR ARGUMENT AIRTIGHT ANY HENCE STRENGTHEN IT. AND OPTION B DOES THE SAME.
After a string of bear attacks, the town of Salmon Falls decided
[#permalink]
Show Tags
01 Dec 2018, 06:19
UTN wrote:
After a string of bear attacks, the town of Salmon Falls decided to close its garbage processing center located on the outskirts of town and move its refuse to a new processing location on an island located three miles offshore. Over the past two years, 30 residents of Salmon Falls were victims of bear attacks, but in the two months since the garbage processing center was moved no bear attacks were reported. Clearly, moving the processing center offshore has made it less likely that residents of Salmon Falls will be attacked by bears.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the claim made above?
A. The number of bear attacks is in a given area is directly proportional to the frequency of human-bear encounters in that area. B. Due to budgetary constraints, Salmon Falls had to cancel its public safety campaign on how to prevent bear attacks. C. Bears generally hibernate for up to five months every year. D. A number of the bears that lived near Salmon Falls were relocated last year. E. Most of the bear attacks over the past two years occurred because a resident had startled an unsuspecting bear.
Kindly share your views on this. I fail to understand how (B) strengthens the the argument claim that 'moving the processing center offshore has decreased bear attacks.'
Looking at the argument, we can conclude that the bears were attracted to the garbage center located in the outskirts of town. It was most likely here that bear attacks occurred.
(E) tells us the reason why bear attacks occurred because people were unaware of a bear in their vicinity and unintentionally startled them, causing the bear to lash out in self defense.
(B) talks about a PSA to prevent bear attacks. How does this strengthen?
Re: After a string of bear attacks, the town of Salmon Falls decided
[#permalink]
Show Tags
01 Dec 2018, 07:38
1
Top Contributor
Yeah, really good question. The case I'd make for (B) is that it gives you a reason to expect that bear attacks would have INCREASED (they cut the programs to teach people how to avoid them, so you'd expect if anything there would be more attacks with fewer people knowing how to avoid them), so the fact that bear attacks actually INCREASED gives a little more credence to the idea that whatever else changed in the meantime (moving the garbage center) must have had a positive impact.
Now...I'd say that's one of the weaker strengtheners I've seen- it doesn't get close to proving that the garage move was the cause of the decrease - but that's the case for how it helps add at least a little value to the argument.
Note also that the argument doesn't give any evidence that the garbage center was where any of the attacks happened, or even what lured the bears into town. That's where I'd be really skeptical of (E) - we don't have any link between "bear attacks" and "garbage center," so (E) describing why the bear attacks happen but not linking them to the garbage center doesn't really move the argument along at all.
_________________
Re: After a string of bear attacks, the town of Salmon Falls decided
[#permalink]
Show Tags
01 Dec 2018, 09:15
VeritasPrepBrian wrote:
Yeah, really good question. The case I'd make for (B) is that it gives you a reason to expect that bear attacks would have INCREASED (they cut the programs to teach people how to avoid them, so you'd expect if anything there would be more attacks with fewer people knowing how to avoid them), so the fact that bear attacks actually INCREASED gives a little more credence to the idea that whatever else changed in the meantime (moving the garbage center) must have had a positive impact.
Now...I'd say that's one of the weaker strengtheners I've seen- it doesn't get close to proving that the garage move was the cause of the decrease - but that's the case for how it helps add at least a little value to the argument.
Note also that the argument doesn't give any evidence that the garbage center was where any of the attacks happened, or even what lured the bears into town. That's where I'd be really skeptical of (E) - we don't have any link between "bear attacks" and "garbage center," so (E) describing why the bear attacks happen but not linking them to the garbage center doesn't really move the argument along at all.
Re: After a string of bear attacks, the town of Salmon Falls decided
[#permalink]
Show Tags
02 Dec 2018, 16:32
Top Contributor
Good question - note that the part of (A) that connects to the conclusion is "bear attacks," and then what (A) adds is "bear attacks are directly proportional to human-bear interactions." But you don't have anything in the stimulus that connects to "human-bear interactions" - that part of (A) doesn't link to anything in our current knowledge base from the paragraph. If we knew that the garbage processing facility was a place of frequent human-bear interaction then (A) would connect the facts to the conclusion, but we don't know that a single human-bear interaction ever took place at or near the facility, so (A) doesn't help us.
_________________
After a string of bear attacks, the town of Salmon Falls decided
[#permalink]
Show Tags
15 Mar 2019, 18:46
VeritasPrepBrian wrote:
Yeah, really good question. The case I'd make for (B) is that it gives you a reason to expect that bear attacks would have INCREASED (they cut the programs to teach people how to avoid them, so you'd expect if anything there would be more attacks with fewer people knowing how to avoid them), so the fact that bear attacks actually INCREASED gives a little more credence to the idea that whatever else changed in the meantime (moving the garbage center) must have had a positive impact.
Now...I'd say that's one of the weaker strengtheners I've seen- it doesn't get close to proving that the garage move was the cause of the decrease - but that's the case for how it helps add at least a little value to the argument.
Note also that the argument doesn't give any evidence that the garbage center was where any of the attacks happened, or even what lured the bears into town. That's where I'd be really skeptical of (E) - we don't have any link between "bear attacks" and "garbage center," so (E) describing why the bear attacks happen but not linking them to the garbage center doesn't really move the argument along at all.
Hi Brian
I have few doubts to be clarified.
Even in B, we don't know how many people attend this program or whether the program is effective in preventing bear attacks or do people ALREADY know everything to prevent bear attack since the training/awareness program is conducted every year etc.
I have another for E; E says that people get attacked by an unsuspected bear. I feel it is safe to assume(one need not be an environment engineer to assume so) that garbage processing centres have multiple heaps of garbage(processed as well as unprocessed, different types such as plastic, paper, metal etc.); these garbage heaps block view & one can't see a bear sitting behind the heaps. So when we moved the processing centre away from the place of attack, we gave a full view of road/passage/section of the old location of processing centre & hence people could easily spot a bear & averted any attack by taking necessary action.
So E basically says gives us a reason for attacks which has been eliminated by the action of relocating the centre(hence removing the heaps)
I agree that I may be assuming little more for E to be an answer but I feel B also doesn't seem to be strong enough due to the lack of some info as mentioned above in 2nd para.
Re: After a string of bear attacks, the town of Salmon Falls decided
[#permalink]
Show Tags
16 Mar 2019, 04:34
As this one seems to cause quite some confusion, try to make it simple:
A: While this could be right, it is quite irrelevant when evaluating our argument
B: Less information about prevention should logically lead to more bear attacks, however, as this is not the case we can assume the relocation of the processing plant is working.
close
25% (01:53) correct 
