Between 2000 and 2010 the rabbit population along the coast of Nova

Question

Between 2000 and 2010 the rabbit population along the coast of Nova Scotia declined dramatically. Wildlife biologists studying the decline could find no signs of disease or undernourishment, so it is likely that the decline was caused by increased predation. Coyotes prefer to hunt larger mammals such as deer and elk, but it is well known that the deer population in Nova Scotia declined substantially in that period because of chronic wasting disease, a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy affecting the herd. Therefore, it is likely that coyotes were the cause of the dramatic decline in the rabbit population.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument above?

A. Despite a substantial decline in the deer population between 2000 and 2010, there were still enough deer to support the coyote population in the region.

B. It is difficult for most wildlife biologists to properly assess whether the decline of an animal population is caused by disease or undernourishment.

C. Between 2000 and 2010, the rabbit population on several islands off the coast that are inaccessible to coyotes did not decline.

D. Coyotes are known to eat mice and other vermin, ground birds, insects, and even fish.

E. Since 2010, the rabbit population has recovered well while the deer population has declined even further.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:

Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Sentence Correction Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler  
  Integrated Reasoning Butler

prantorboni · Answer

Between 2000 and 2010 the rabbit population along the coast of Nova Scotia declined dramatically. Wildlife biologists studying the decline could find no signs of disease or undernourishment, so it is likely that the decline was caused by increased predation. Coyotes prefer to hunt larger mammals such as deer and elk, but it is well known that the deer population in Nova Scotia declined substantially in that period because of chronic wasting disease, a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy affecting the herd. Therefore, it is likely that coyotes were the cause of the dramatic decline in the rabbit population.

Between 2000 and 2010 the rabbit population declined dramatically likely that the decline was caused by increased predation. It is well known that the deer population in declined substantially in that period. Therefore, it is likely that coyotes, predators of that area were the cause of the dramatic decline in the rabbit population.

Now, consider C, if deer population has decreased, certainly,  coyotes need to hunt other animals to survive. If, the rabbit population on several islands off the coast that are inaccessible to coyotes did not decline which logically indicates decline in the rabbit population along the coast was due to the predation by coyotes.

Answer: C.

Abdelaali91 · Answer

A. Despite a substantial decline in the deer population between 2000 and 2010, there were still enough deer to support the coyote population in the region:  if this were true, the argument would be weakened.

B. It is difficult for most wildlife biologists to properly assess whether the decline of an animal population is caused by disease or undernourishment :  same as A, this weakens the argument

C. Between 2000 and 2010, the rabbit population on several islands off the coast that are inaccessible to coyotes did not decline :  yes, definitely strengthens the argument

D. Coyotes are known to eat mice and other vermin, ground birds, insects, and even fish :  irrelevant

E. Since 2010, the rabbit population has recovered well while the deer population has declined even further :  not interested in the period after 2010.

Krunaal · Answer

We need to  strengthen that coyotes were the cause of the dramatic decline in the rabbit population.

A.  This indicates that there was still enough larger mammal i.e. deer in this case for coyotes to hunt and not much reason to hunt rabbits. This weakens our conclusion .  INCORRECT

B.  So what? What if it is difficult but in this case they were accurate, and even if they weren't it doesn't strengthen our conclusion in any way.   INCORRECT

C.  Oh, okay - so the place that coyotes couldn't access i.e. several islands off the coast did not experience a decline in rabbit population; then it could be so that as this place wasn't inaccessible to coyotes, they hunted rabbits here. This strengthens our conclusion.   CORRECT

D.  Okay, good to know - i guess - but doesn't help strengthen our conclusion.   INCORRECT

E.  Good for rabbits! The question is concerned with what happened in period between 2000 and 2010.   INCORRECT

Bunuel · Answer

Veritas Prep Official Solution:

In this argument, it is concluded that predation by coyotes was the cause of the rabbit decline in Nova Scotia between 2000 and 2010. However, the evidence for this conclusion is quite weak. While disease and undernourishment are eliminated as causes of the decline, it is entirely possible that the decline was caused by a different predator. While deer, the preferred prey for coyotes, did decline in this period, this does not prove that coyotes were responsible for the rabbit decline. Therefore, the correct answer should be something that gives additional evidence supporting coyote predation as the cause of the decline.

For (A), if this were true, then it would suggest that coyotes were NOT responsible for the rabbit decline as they would still be able to feed off the deer, their preferred prey.

For (B), this answer choice addresses the possibility that wildlife biologists might have missed some cause relating to disease or malnourishment. However, if this is true and the decline was indeed caused by one of these things, that would weaken not strengthen the conclusion.

For (C), this gives additional evidence supporting the conclusion. If there was a place that coyotes were not present over that period and in that place the rabbit population did not decline, this helps build the case that indeed coyotes were the cause. Remember: the given argument provides no evidence that the cause was coyote predation; the only evidence is "it wasn't one of these two things that aren't coyote predation." So any evidence that ties coyote presence closer to rabbit decline is helpful.

For (D), whatever else coyotes might eat is not relevant, as you don’t know what happened to those populations and how that would affect coyote predation of rabbits.

For (E), whatever happened since 2010 is not important, as this argument is only concerned with explaining a decline during the particular period from 2000 to 2010.

The correct answer is (C)

Between 2000 and 2010 the rabbit population along the coast of Nova

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Between 2000 and 2010 the rabbit population along the coast of Nova

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards