In a survey of the census of tigers in the Sundarbans, reporters have

Question

In a survey of the census of tigers in the Sundarbans, reporters have found that the population of tigers has reduced by 20% from the previous year. To save the tigers from extinction, a new law has been passed by the senator, stating that poachers will be punished and imprisoned. However, after five years, the survey report showed that the tiger population is still decreasing.

For which of the following assumptions has the new law of the senator failed to save the tigers?

A) Poachers who are convicted and sent to prison face a maximum punishment of two years.
B) The villagers perceive tiger hunting as a courageous act.
C) There are no other significant factors contributing to the decrease in the tiger population, such as habitat loss or natural predators.
D) The law was implemented and enforced properly, without any loopholes or lack of resources for monitoring and enforcement.
E) None of these

Kapil1650 · Answer

A could be right but why C is wrong? Can any one explain?

Posted from my mobile device

lylawaters · Answer

The answer must be an assumption that the new law failed to take into account. Of the above choices, only choice A is an assumption that the new law failed to take into account. So the answer is A.

The other choices are not assumptions of the new law. Choice B is a fact that the new law did not take into account. Choice C is a factor that the new law did take into account, as it states that poachers will be punished and imprisoned. Choice D is a statement about the implementation of the law, not an assumption of the law.

Therefore, the only assumption that the new law failed to take into account is that poachers who are convicted and sent to prison face a maximum punishment of two years. This is a relatively short punishment, and it is possible that poachers are still willing to risk it in order to hunt tigers.

zammer27 · Answer

Let's break down the argument and the assumptions step by step.

Argument Summary:
Problem: Tiger population has decreased by 20%.
Solution (Law): A law was passed to punish and imprison poachers to stop tiger extinction.
Result: After five years, the tiger population is still decreasing.
This tells us that the law hasn't worked, and we need to figure out why. We need to identify what assumption the law relied on that didn't hold up.

Analyzing the Answer Choices:
(A): Poachers who are convicted and sent to prison face a maximum punishment of two years.
This choice talks about the length of punishment but doesn't directly explain why the tiger population is still decreasing. Even if the punishment is short, it doesn’t tell us whether poaching is the only cause of the population decline.

(B): The villagers perceive tiger hunting as a courageous act.
This might explain a cultural reason why poaching continues, but the law should address poaching as a crime, regardless of how villagers perceive it. So, while this could affect behavior, it’s not the most critical assumption the law failed on.

(C): There are no other significant factors contributing to the decrease in the tiger population, such as habitat loss or natural predators.
This is important. The law assumes that poaching is the only major reason for the decline in tiger numbers. If other factors like habitat loss, climate change, or natural predators are also causing the population to decrease, then the law would not fully address the problem. This assumption—that poaching is the only issue—might be wrong, and that could explain why the tiger population is still declining.

(D): The law was implemented and enforced properly, without any loopholes or lack of resources for monitoring and enforcement.
This suggests that poor enforcement or gaps in the law could be why it hasn’t worked. If the law was not properly enforced or had loopholes, poaching might still continue, and the law would fail in its purpose. This is also a critical assumption because even the best law needs proper execution to succeed.

(E): None of these.
This choice says that none of the assumptions listed explain why the law failed, which seems unlikely given that there are potential issues in (C) and (D).

Conclusion:
The strongest answers are (C) and (D) because they both point to major assumptions the law relies on:

(C) assumes that poaching is the only factor affecting the tiger population, which may not be true. Other causes like habitat loss might explain why the population continues to decrease.
(D) assumes that the law was properly enforced, and if it wasn’t, poaching could continue.
Between the two, (C) is the better answer because even if the law is perfectly enforced, if there are other factors like habitat destruction, the law targeting poaching wouldn’t solve the problem.

Delrish · Answer

I am unable to understand why A is the answer and not C.

A_Nishith · Answer

To answer this question, we need to identify which assumption, if untrue, would have caused the new law to fail in saving the tigers. Let's go through each option.

Conclusion:
The senator passed a law to punish poachers to save tigers, but after five years, the population is still decreasing. The question asks us to determine the assumption that, if false, explains why the law failed.

Option A:
"Poachers who are convicted and sent to prison face a maximum punishment of two years."

Analysis: This statement discusses the severity of punishment for poachers. While this might affect how effective the law is in deterring poachers, it doesn't directly address whether poaching is the primary reason for the decrease in the tiger population. A lesser punishment may reduce the deterrence effect, but it doesn't fully explain why the population continues to drop even with the law in place.
Conclusion: This is not the correct assumption. Even if the punishment is light, the law should still have some effect unless other factors are at play.

Option B:
"The villagers perceive tiger hunting as a courageous act."

Analysis: If villagers believe that hunting tigers is courageous, they may be more motivated to poach, despite the law. This could contribute to the continued decline in tiger numbers because people continue poaching regardless of the threat of punishment. The law assumes that people are deterred by legal consequences, but if social attitudes favor hunting, the law may not be as effective.
Conclusion: This could be a contributing factor, but it doesn't fully explain the failure of the law. While relevant, it doesn't directly address whether poaching is the only cause of the decline.

Option C:
"There are no other significant factors contributing to the decrease in the tiger population, such as habitat loss or natural predators."

Analysis:  This assumption states that poaching is the only factor considered when passing the law. If habitat loss, prey reduction, or natural predators are also contributing to the population decline, then the law targeting poachers alone would not be sufficient to reverse the trend. If this assumption is false (i.e., there are other significant factors like habitat loss), the law would fail to save the tigers.
 Conclusion:  This is likely the correct answer.  If other factors besides poaching are causing the population decline, then the law aimed solely at poachers would not be enough to stop the decline.

Option D:
"The law was implemented and enforced properly, without any loopholes or lack of resources for monitoring and enforcement."

Analysis: This assumption is about the effective implementation of the law. If the law was not enforced properly, it would explain why the tiger population is still decreasing despite the law being in place. However, the assumption suggests that enforcement was proper, meaning the issue lies elsewhere.
Conclusion: This assumption is crucial, but the question asks us to find the assumption under which the law failed. If the law was implemented properly, then other causes must be at play, making this not the best choice for explaining the failure.

Option E:
"None of these"

Analysis: This option suggests that none of the assumptions above contributed to the failure of the law. However, based on the analysis above, Option C seems to provide the clearest explanation for why the law did not succeed. So, this option is not correct.

Final Answer:
 Correct Answer: C 
Explanation: The law assumed that poaching was the only factor responsible for the decline in the tiger population. However, if other factors, such as habitat loss or natural predators, were contributing to the decline, then the law alone would not be sufficient to stop it. Therefore, the failure of the law can be attributed to the assumption that there were no other significant factors affecting the tiger population.

einstein801 · Answer

FAIL question pls remove

In a survey of the census of tigers in the Sundarbans, reporters have

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