New project from GMAT Club! Click
hereFoxes generally keep off from human neighborhoods, for fear of being hounded out ruthlessly. Yet prior to 1950, considerable domestic animals such as lambs, sheep, which are delicacy for the foxes, were lost due to some sudden increase in population of foxes. In order to control the over-population, the government kicked off a scheme in 1950 to give incentive to fox-hunters and a sizable number of foxes were either killed or incapacitated from hunting between 1950 and 955. Yet the attacks on domesticated animals by foxes increased dramatically in the same period.
.
Which of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy in the passage above?
A. Populations of deer and other wild animals that foxes typically prey on, increased significantly in numbers from 1950 to 1955
B. Prior to 1950, there were no legal restrictions on the hunting of foxes
C. After 1950, the fox –hunters, in their greed to gain incentives wounded more foxes than killing them, thereby greatly diminishing the foxes’ ability to prey on wild animals.
D. Domestic animals are poor defenders of attacks from foxes.
E. The systematic hunting of foxes drove many to migrate to remote mountain areas uninhabited by humans, leading to wolves attacking the domestic animals.
Source : Question by daagh, Verbal Expert, Gmat club
this looks like a solve the paradox type of question.
foxes were killed or incapacitated from hunting.
yet the attacks by foxes on domesticated animals has increased.
my initial thought -> hunters went to remote locations to kill foxes, an action that in turn made foxes to appear closer to human neighborhoods, and thus kill more animals.
A. out of scope
B. irrelevant
C. aha! so foxes were wounded, and thus, since they needed to eat and could not hunt, they hunted on domesticated animals.
D. irrelevant
E. doesn't explain the paradox.