jppeka
Animal control workers in the forest land around Forestville have been trying to reduce the population of the Wumpus, an aggressive rodent that has been attacking smaller animals in the area. Local residents believe the Wumpus was introduced to the forest about 50 years ago, when a tourist brought a pair of pet Wumpuses that escaped into the wild. Recently, archaeologists digging in the forest have found skeletons of the Wumpus that date back over 2,000 years. This discovery shows that ___.
(A) even if the Wumpus is raised as a pet, it is able to survive and reproduce in the wild
(B) the Wumpus is actually native to the forest, so animal control workers shouldn’t try to reduce its population
(C) Wumpuses have only been attacking smaller animals recently due to a decline in the availability of their main food source
(D) if left unchecked, the Wumpus population will pose a threat to the native ecosystem of the forest
(E) local residents are correct about the origin of the Wumpus in the area
Here is my line of reasoning :
=
Premises=> Reduce Wumpus (aggressive rodent) + believe brought 50 years ago + new evidence skeletons back over 2,000 years
=
Therefore=> (1>>A) Wumpus can survive in the wild whatever their origin -OR- (2>>C) the attacks of Wumpus are just recent b/c of food scarcity.
OA: later
Argument:
- Animal control is trying to reduce the population of wumpus (because they are killing smaller animals).
- Locals believe wumpus was introduced here when tourists brought them in as pets.
- *Recently, archaeologists here have found skeletons of the Wumpus that date back over 2,000 years.
This discovery shows that _____________
Note that we need to find the implication of this discovery - the 2000 yr old skeleton found in forest. What does it imply? It implies that rumpus existed in the forest 2000 yrs ago too. It is native to the forest. It was not introduced for the first time 50 yrs ago by tourists.
(A) even if the Wumpus is raised as a pet, it is able to survive and reproduce in the wild
The discovery doesn't tell us that. If the rumpus was brought in as pet and then they survived in the forest, that would tell us that even if it is raised as a pet, it is able to survive and reproduce in the wild. The discover of a 2000 yr old skeleton of rumpus in the forest has nothing to do with this.
(B) the Wumpus is actually native to the forest, so animal control workers shouldn’t try to reduce its population
Yes, the discovery does show that the wumpus is native to the forest. But I am a bit uncomfortable with the second part of the sentence. The author gives his opinion in this "animal control should not try to control the population". But anyway, it is the most logical completion.
(C) Wumpuses have only been attacking smaller animals recently due to a decline in the availability of their main food source.
The discovery doesn't show that wumpuses did not attack previously. May be they did but their population was limited. May be their population has increased exponentially because of something. The reasons could be many. Also, even if they have started attacking recently, it may or may not be because of food scarcity. The recent discovery doesn't help in establishing any of this. Hence this is certainly not the answer.
(D) if left unchecked, the Wumpus population will pose a threat to the native ecosystem of the forest
Again, this is not an implication of the recent discovery. This has no link to the discovery.
(E) local residents are correct about the origin of the Wumpus in the area
Actually the discovery negates the local residents' belief.
Answer (B)