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.
With all Due Respect