ashutosh_73 wrote:
Quote:
Farmer: Several people in the past few years have claimed to have seen a mountain lion in the suburban outskirts—the latest just last month—and, while mountain lions were thought to have been driven from this entire region about twenty years ago, there is no reason for the people who reported seeing a mountain lion to have deliberately concocted a false report. Therefore, local wildlife managers should begin to urgently address the mountain lion's presence.
Which of the following would, if true, most seriously weaken the farmer's argument?
A. Farmers in the suburban outskirts mostly raise cattle and hogs, which when fully grown are generally not attacked by mountain lions.
B. Mountain lions are dissimilar in size and color to other wild animals found near the suburban outskirts.
C. No person who claimed to have seen a mountain lion had anyone else with them at the purported sighting.
D. There have been no regional reports in the past year of mountain lions migrating to the area.
E. Recent surveys show that more than half of the people in the region report that they have never seen a mountain lion before.
Argument:
- Several people claimed to have seen a mountain lion in this region.
- These people have no reason to lie.
Conclusion: Hence, we should start addressing this problem (implying mountain lions are present in this region)
Hi
KarishmaB GMATNinja ReedArnoldMPREPAlthough i have got this question using POE, i have a v.basic query:
I have learned that, premises in given CR ques are always TRUE, and we should never question the premise, as suggested in the various posters in the below ''Florida Alligator
OG ques''
https://gmatclub.com/forum/in-the-1960s ... 39-20.htmlBut in this ''Mountain Lion'' question, aren't we weakening the premise itself? We are basically saying that those sightings are ''NOT 100% validated''
''Several people in the past few years have claimed to have seen a mountain lion''Please help!
Hi there. Great question.
First off, the advice to 'not doubt a premise' is *almost* always true. There are a *few* questions where 'doubting a premise' can be helpful. This one falls right on the border!
Notice what the premise says: "many people claim to have seen a mountain lion."
What would it mean to doubt that premise? We doubt that many people have *claimed* that.
That is, "Maybe actually, only a few people has claimed to see a mountain lion, several times?" or "maybe actually only one person, as a prank, is submitting all the claims of mountain lion sightings?"
It would also doubt the premise to say, "Actually, most of those claims were mis-filed, and the claims people made were that they saw a bob-cat."
That is to say, to doubt the premise would be to doubt the amount and quality of the *claims*.
But we're allowed to wonder, "Well, they *claim* to see a mountain lion, but maybe they didn't?"
Notice the difference between:
"Many people claim to have seen a mountain lion"
and
"Many people *have seen* a mountain lion."
In the second situation, we would *not* be allowed to say, "Actually, no they didn't."
Notice that the GMAT has given you a hint: There's no reason to think people have 'deliberately concocted a false report.'
...But what about *accidentally* concocting a false report? Thinking you see a mountain lion, making the claim... but being wrong? That's still allowed to ponder.