+HOT Competition 4 Sep/9AM: The current lemur population of Madagascar

Veritas Prep Explanation:

The correct answer is D.

Answer D logically describes the “lemur population of Madagascar” as the thing that “will drop below 1,000.” It also correctly parallels the “either… or” correlative conjunction structure at the end of the sentence. Finally, it uses the correct verb tense “are” to describe the conditional nature of the reversal of present trends.

Answer A is the closest wrong answer. However, its fatal flaw is its claim that “the current lemur population… will drop.” This is quite impossible; “the current lemur population” is what it is, and that number will never change. “The lemur population” will drop, of course, but at that point it will no longer be “the current lemur population.” This may be a fine distinction, but the fact remains that it renders Answer A (and Answer B, and maybe Answer E) illogical, so Answer A is wrong.

Answer B again illogically claims that “the current lemur population… will drop.” Furthermore, this answer’s use of the subjunctive “were reversed” makes no sense in a conditional future statement, since the reversal of the trend is in fact quite possible and is not contrary to fact.

Answer C uses the relative pronoun “which” incorrectly. This pronoun modifies what it’s next to, which is “roughly 2,000” – but it would come as a great surprise to mathematicians everywhere if we were informed that “roughly 2,000” will soon “drop below 1,000.” Furthermore, there is no call for the conditional “would” in the latter part of this sentence; the reversal of the trend is not explicitly contingent on anything. Finally, “either through… or” is a failure of parallelism in the concluding correlative conjunction structure.

Answer E seems to suggest that there exist something called “rough lemurs,” with population 2,000. This answer is quite ambiguous in its use of the pronoun “this”; what is it that will drop? 2,000? The population of rough lemurs? The current population of rough lemurs (again, illogical)? Both the conditional “would” and the subjunctive “were” in the latter half of this sentence are incorrect, seeming to imply that all of this action is contrary to fact, i.e. that the population actually will not drop because government or private efforts are a foregone conclusion. Finally, “either through… or” is a failure of parallelism in the concluding correlative conjunction structure.