Last visit was: 27 Sep 2026, 03:58 It is currently 27 Sep 2026, 03:58
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2   3   4   
705-805 (Hard)|   Weaken|                     
User avatar
hadimadi
User avatar
Joined: 26 Oct 2021
Last visit: 03 Dec 2022
Posts: 112
Own Kudos:
32
Given Kudos: 94
Posts: 112
Kudos: 32
In the 1960s, surveys of Florida's alligator population indicated that 16 Jan 2022, 08:15
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AndrewN

Hi Andrew,

thanks for taking the time and rereading everyone's posts (which I apparently didn't do in detail).

I think I know understand:

There could be more people and more alligators, but it must not be true that there are more alligators in the scenario that population increased (it could be, however), because we assume that more people -> likely more reports

Then, I still have to cope with this likelihood thing...

Thanks Andrew
avatar
AndrewN
avatar
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Last visit: 29 Mar 2025
Posts: 3,485
Own Kudos:
7,813
 [2]
Given Kudos: 500
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 3,485
Kudos: 7,813
 [2]
In the 1960s, surveys of Florida's alligator population indicated that 16 Jan 2022, 08:35
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
hadimadi
AndrewN

Hi Andrew,

thanks for taking the time and rereading everyone's posts (which I apparently didn't do in detail).

I think I know understand:

There could be more people and more alligators, but it must not be true that there are more alligators in the scenario that population increased (it could be, however), because we assume that more people -> likely more reports

Then, I still have to cope with this likelihood thing...

Thanks Andrew
Show more
Hello again, hadimadi. Glad to help. There is just one clarification I would like to make. We are not assuming that more people means more reports. There is no assumption to be made. The emphasis should be more on likely: the more people there are to see something, the more likely it is that reports would increase. Yes, you still have to consider likelihoods, but weaken questions are designed with a scale of likelihood in mind. The answer choice that most weakens the argument is the one to choose. On easier questions, there might be one option that we assess at a 99 percent likelihood of weakening the argument, but this question is unassuming, and the task becomes more challenging.

- Andrew
User avatar
GraceSCKao
User avatar
Joined: 02 Jul 2021
Last visit: 18 Dec 2022
Posts: 117
Own Kudos:
55
Given Kudos: 1,244
Location: Taiwan
Schools: Columbia CBS '24 Darden '24 LBS '24 Wharton '24
GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V39
Schools: Columbia CBS '24 Darden '24 LBS '24 Wharton '24
GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V39
Posts: 117
Kudos: 55
In the 1960s, surveys of Florida's alligator population indicated that 07 Mar 2022, 09:47
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AndrewN

We are not assuming that more people means more reports. There is no assumption to be made. The emphasis should be more on likely: the more people there are to see something, the more likely it is that reports would increase. Yes, you still have to consider likelihoods, but weaken questions are designed with a scale of likelihood in mind.
Show more

I want to share some of my thoughts for the option (A) and (E). The former was not an obvious winner to me when I did this question the first time, while the latter was tempting because it resembled the correct answer to the "mountain lion" CR question.

Premise: Over the course of the 1990s, reports of alligators appearing on golf courses and lawns increased dramatically.

Conclusion: Therefore, in spite of whatever alligator hunting went on, the alligator population must have increased significantly over the decade of the 1990s.

Let's check the option (A):
A. The human population of Florida increased significantly during the 1990s.

Several experts have pointed out that if the human population increased significantly, it is likely that at least some sightings occurred because there are more people around to see the alligators. I can understand this line of thinking, but I have to say that the connection is not very persuasive because of the modifier "reports of alligators appearing on golf courses and lawns." They are not reports of sighting in rivers or lakes, places anyone can be, but reports of sighting at golf lawns, places where only the member of golf clubs can be.

Maybe in some places in the US, it is reasonable to infer that the rise in human population would likely lead to a rise in the number of golf players, but that is not the case in most Asian countries (in my opinion). Here, the rise in human population would likely lead to growths in the number of new buildings or the number of gym customers, but golf players? Not really....

I do not reject (A), though. As some experts have pointes out, the option (A) could be two-pronged. Even though I dislike the connection mentioned above, I could understand that a significant growth in human population usually triggers environmental disruption and thus some alligators' habitats might have been destroyed. So, it is possible that the alligators were displaced and entered the golf areas, or it could be the case that the alligators never left the river they stay but their habitats were just turned into golf lawns.

Let's check the option (E):
E. Most of the sightings of alligators on golf courses and lawns in the 1990s occurred at times at which few people were present on those golf courses and lawns.

This is similar to the correct answer of the mountain lion question but is the incorrect answer to this one......perhaps the GMAC was trying to prove its diversity and creativity when making this question.

The option (E), while tempting, is incorrect for two reasons:
(1) It says "few people," compared with a single person in the mountain lion quesiton. Even if we apply the logic in the mountain lion question that the others can help correct the mistaken belief, it does not work here. There were "few people" in most of the sightings, so if one of them were to mistakenly believe that he or she saw an alligator, the others could help correct the mistaken belief. So, we cannot really use the logic in the mountain lion case to doubt the accuracy of the reports in this alligator case.

(2) Alright, even if we decide to ignore the logic in the mountain lion case and make our own assumption that few people can be mistaken together about what they see (after all, it is not a crazy assumption), the option (E) might be able to suggest the accuracy of most of the reports is doubtful.

But, the premise says that "reports of alligators...... increased dramatically." The modifier "dramatically" plays a role here. The word "dramatically" means double-digit growth or even rise of multiple times.

Let's say that there were 100 reports before and the number of reports grew to 150 (at least) in the 1990s. Even if we take an extreme move, thinking that most of the sightings, or 80 to 90, were false or mistaken, there were still many reports of sightings in which many people were present. These reports should be more likely accurate. Now, the option (E) could not attack the accuracy of these reports. And these reports could still support the conclusion that the alligator population have increased.
User avatar
IanStewart
User avatar
GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Last visit: 24 Sep 2026
Posts: 4,146
Own Kudos:
11,569
 [2]
Given Kudos: 98
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V47
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V47
Posts: 4,146
Kudos: 11,569
 [2]
In the 1960s, surveys of Florida's alligator population indicated that 07 Mar 2022, 17:36
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GraceSCKao
I have to say that the connection is not very persuasive because of the modifier "reports of alligators appearing on golf courses and lawns." They are not reports of sighting in rivers or lakes, places anyone can be, but reports of sighting at golf lawns, places where only the member of golf clubs can be.
Show more

You've thought through the question well, but I think you may have distorted the meaning of one important phrase, and that may have made the right answer seem less convincing. When the question talks about "golf courses and lawns", it is talking about two different things, but I think you combined them into a single thing, "golf lawns". When the question talks about "lawns", it's talking about the stretches of grass in front or in back of people's houses. So it's not only golfers who were seeing the alligators; it was homeowners too. I agree that if it was only golfers seeing alligators, we'd have to look at the question differently, because, as you correctly point out, we can't conclude there will be more golfers just because the population goes up, among other reasons.
User avatar
Tanchat
User avatar
Joined: 31 Jan 2020
Last visit: 20 Jun 2023
Posts: 213
Own Kudos:
22
Given Kudos: 139
Posts: 213
Kudos: 22
In the 1960s, surveys of Florida's alligator population indicated that 12 Oct 2022, 23:08
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Dear experts,

I read almost comments. However, I am sill unconvinced.

I can eliminate (B), (C), and (D). I am still struggling with (A) and (E).

Here are my thought.
First, if possible we should link the evidence/premise to the conclusion as much as possible.

We got reports of alligators on golf courses and lawns. --> The alligator population must have increased significantly

(A) The human population of Florida increased..
> The more population, The more report (OK)
> The more population, The more hunt (?)

(E) Most of the sightings of alligators on golf courses and lawns in the 1990s occurred at times at which few people were present on those golf courses and lawns.

few people were present on those golf ---> few people reported the sightings of alligators. ---> other few people also reported the sightings of alligators, and those alligators may be the same alligators that the first few people reported. Thus, the population of alligators haven't increased. It is just an increasing number of report.

(E) does connect between the provided premise and the provided conclusion. But (A) needs some more thought. It seems that it depends on how we interpret the choices... (for this question)

PS. I did read almost comments.
User avatar
ReedArnoldMPREP
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2021
Last visit: 03 Dec 2025
Posts: 521
Own Kudos:
559
Given Kudos: 37
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Posts: 521
Kudos: 559
In the 1960s, surveys of Florida's alligator population indicated that 13 Oct 2022, 07:44
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Tanchat
Dear experts,

I read almost comments. However, I am sill unconvinced.

I can eliminate (B), (C), and (D). I am still struggling with (A) and (E).

Here are my thought.
First, if possible we should link the evidence/premise to the conclusion as much as possible.

We got reports of alligators on golf courses and lawns. --> The alligator population must have increased significantly

(A) The human population of Florida increased..
> The more population, The more report (OK)
> The more population, The more hunt (?)

(E) Most of the sightings of alligators on golf courses and lawns in the 1990s occurred at times at which few people were present on those golf courses and lawns.

few people were present on those golf ---> few people reported the sightings of alligators. ---> other few people also reported the sightings of alligators, and those alligators may be the same alligators that the first few people reported. Thus, the population of alligators haven't increased. It is just an increasing number of report.

(E) does connect between the provided premise and the provided conclusion. But (A) needs some more thought. It seems that it depends on how we interpret the choices... (for this question)

PS. I did read almost comments.
Show more

I need to understand your reasoning for E a little better. If there are *few* people on the lawns and golf courses, the chance of a "duplicate sighting" is *low*, but your reasoning seems to imply that it's likely. "few" means 'not very many.' If sightings happen when there aren't many people out, and if there are more sightings reported, that means it's unlikely to have a lot of duplicate sightings of the same alligator at the same time, so it's more likely that there are more alligators around.

Consider if the sightings occurred when there were MANY people on the lawns and golf courses. Well then that would mean that most likely, a bunch of people are reporting the same gator. So *that* would weaken the argument.
User avatar
Tanchat
User avatar
Joined: 31 Jan 2020
Last visit: 20 Jun 2023
Posts: 213
Own Kudos:
22
Given Kudos: 139
Posts: 213
Kudos: 22
In the 1960s, surveys of Florida's alligator population indicated that 13 Oct 2022, 09:40
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ReedArnoldMPREP
Tanchat
Dear experts,

I read almost comments. However, I am sill unconvinced.

I can eliminate (B), (C), and (D). I am still struggling with (A) and (E).

Here are my thought.
First, if possible we should link the evidence/premise to the conclusion as much as possible.

We got reports of alligators on golf courses and lawns. --> The alligator population must have increased significantly

(A) The human population of Florida increased..
> The more population, The more report (OK)
> The more population, The more hunt (?)

(E) Most of the sightings of alligators on golf courses and lawns in the 1990s occurred at times at which few people were present on those golf courses and lawns.

few people were present on those golf ---> few people reported the sightings of alligators. ---> other few people also reported the sightings of alligators, and those alligators may be the same alligators that the first few people reported. Thus, the population of alligators haven't increased. It is just an increasing number of report.

(E) does connect between the provided premise and the provided conclusion. But (A) needs some more thought. It seems that it depends on how we interpret the choices... (for this question)

PS. I did read almost comments.

I need to understand your reasoning for E a little better. If there are *few* people on the lawns and golf courses, the chance of a "duplicate sighting" is *low*, but your reasoning seems to imply that it's likely. "few" means 'not very many.' If sightings happen when there aren't many people out, and if there are more sightings reported, that means it's unlikely to have a lot of duplicate sightings of the same alligator at the same time, so it's more likely that there are more alligators around.

Consider if the sightings occurred when there were MANY people on the lawns and golf courses. Well then that would mean that most likely, a bunch of people are reporting the same gator. So *that* would weaken the argument.
Show more


ReedArnoldMPREP


For (E), I imply that few = not very many. (please, correct if I am wrong : Actually I am not sure whether "few" = "a few" or not.)
Supposed that few = not very many, what I mean is that if few people, let's say 5 people, on the lawns and golf courses saw alligators, then they reported that they had seen alligators. On the next day, other few people, 3 people, saw the same alligators. Then, these 2-3 people reported again. Thus, total 8 people saw the same alligators, but there are 2 reports. Thus, it does weaken the conclusion because there are many reports rather than many alligators.
User avatar
ReedArnoldMPREP
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2021
Last visit: 03 Dec 2025
Posts: 521
Own Kudos:
559
 [1]
Given Kudos: 37
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Posts: 521
Kudos: 559
 [1]
In the 1960s, surveys of Florida's alligator population indicated that 13 Oct 2022, 13:59
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Tanchat
ReedArnoldMPREP
Tanchat
Dear experts,

I read almost comments. However, I am sill unconvinced.

I can eliminate (B), (C), and (D). I am still struggling with (A) and (E).

Here are my thought.
First, if possible we should link the evidence/premise to the conclusion as much as possible.

We got reports of alligators on golf courses and lawns. --> The alligator population must have increased significantly

(A) The human population of Florida increased..
> The more population, The more report (OK)
> The more population, The more hunt (?)

(E) Most of the sightings of alligators on golf courses and lawns in the 1990s occurred at times at which few people were present on those golf courses and lawns.

few people were present on those golf ---> few people reported the sightings of alligators. ---> other few people also reported the sightings of alligators, and those alligators may be the same alligators that the first few people reported. Thus, the population of alligators haven't increased. It is just an increasing number of report.

(E) does connect between the provided premise and the provided conclusion. But (A) needs some more thought. It seems that it depends on how we interpret the choices... (for this question)

PS. I did read almost comments.

I need to understand your reasoning for E a little better. If there are *few* people on the lawns and golf courses, the chance of a "duplicate sighting" is *low*, but your reasoning seems to imply that it's likely. "few" means 'not very many.' If sightings happen when there aren't many people out, and if there are more sightings reported, that means it's unlikely to have a lot of duplicate sightings of the same alligator at the same time, so it's more likely that there are more alligators around.

Consider if the sightings occurred when there were MANY people on the lawns and golf courses. Well then that would mean that most likely, a bunch of people are reporting the same gator. So *that* would weaken the argument.


ReedArnoldMPREP


For (E), I imply that few = not very many. (please, correct if I am wrong : Actually I am not sure whether "few" = "a few" or not.)
Supposed that few = not very many, what I mean is that if few people, let's say 5 people, on the lawns and golf courses saw alligators, then they reported that they had seen alligators. On the next day, other few people, 3 people, saw the same alligators. Then, these 2-3 people reported again. Thus, total 8 people saw the same alligators, but there are 2 reports. Thus, it does weaken the conclusion because there are many reports rather than many alligators.
Show more

First off, *we* can't say that these people are probably seeing the same alligators. And the fact that there are *very few* people on the courses/lawns doesn't affect the question about whether they're seeing the *same alligators* on different days. If there are many people, or only few people, each group could see the same alligators on different days and make their reports. The number of people doesn't justify the jump to "Oh so it's probably the same gators they're seeing").

(NOTE: if there are MANY people on the lawns/courses during these sightings, then the reports THAT DAY are more likely duplicate sightings of the same alligator! So that WOULD weaken this argument).

While it's certainly possible that--and it would certainly weaken the argument if--all these reports are actually of the same alligators, **Answer choice E doesn't actually indicate this**. The fact that there are few people on the lawns/golf courses tells me nothing about whether these few people are seeing the same gators, day after day.... It just says there aren't many people on the golf courses/lawns when the gator sightings that get reported happen. You're making the leap to say "Oh, well, this implies that maybe they're seeing the same gators day after day!" But... maybe they aren't? Maybe these few people are seeing different gators day in day out? Heck if I know, so I don't see why the small number of people matters. This answer gives us no reason to think either is happening, so it doesn't weaken the argument.

If *anything*, the fact that there aren't many people out when these sightings are recorded STRENGTHENS the argument, because it tells me each sighting probably isn't 'duplicated' much.

And remember, you need to answer...why are reports of alligator sightings increasing so much? That's what's at heart of this question. The author has decided "More gator sightings" probably means "more gators," it's our job to ask, "How could there be more gator sightings but NOT more gators?" Answer choice E does not sufficiently explain that phenomenon. But if there are just MORE PEOPLE, there are more people who can report any gators they see.

Here's the other question to ask about this 'what if they're seeing the same gators, day in day out?' **Why are the number of reports increasing?** Why didn't people USED to see the same gators day in and day out and make similar numbers of reports?

Why would gator reports go up? Let's consider that. Either:

There are in fact more gators being seeing now.

There are not more gators, but people are more likely to make a report when they see a gator.

There are not more gators, but there are more people who see gators.

There are not more gators, but people are making a bunch of mistaken reports.

If people are seeing the same gators day in/day out, why are there MORE REPORTS now? Did they used to NOT report seeing the same gators day in, day out?
User avatar
RenB
User avatar
Joined: 13 Jul 2022
Last visit: 06 Jul 2026
Posts: 384
Own Kudos:
1,648
Given Kudos: 302
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Nonprofit
Schools: Stanford '26 Wharton  '26 (D) Booth '26 (D) Yale '26 (D) CBS '26 (A$$$) Darden '26 (WL) HBS '28 (D) Ross '26 (A$$$$) LBS '26 (D) Tuck '26 (A$$) Kellogg '26 (A)
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q90 V84 DI82
GPA: 3.74
WE:Corporate Finance (Consulting)
Schools: Stanford '26 Wharton  '26 (D) Booth '26 (D) Yale '26 (D) CBS '26 (A$$$) Darden '26 (WL) HBS '28 (D) Ross '26 (A$$$$) LBS '26 (D) Tuck '26 (A$$) Kellogg '26 (A)
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q90 V84 DI82
Posts: 384
Kudos: 1,648
In the 1960s, surveys of Florida's alligator population indicated that 02 Aug 2023, 22:42
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AndrewN
jayarora
Hi experts,

I pre-thought of two scenarios in which the population of alligators need not have increased: 1) What if restrictions limiting the access of alligators to golf courses were eased? 2) What if people started reported spurious cases?

I believe option E is along the lines of (2). Most of the times if there were only one or two persons then it could be that these reports were 'fake'. How do I eliminate this answer choice?

Sighting of alligators is quite a rare event and even if the population increases significantly one cannot expect the cases to 'dramatically' increase
Hello, jayarora. You ask a fair question. Speaking to the strategy of pre-thinking, I find it mildly useful. In some questions, pre-thinking can help me get the answer spot-on, before I even encounter the answer choices; in others, I can pre-think up a storm and find no corresponding answers. Because it is difficult to predict whether any given question will fall into Camp A or Camp B, I typically bypass pre-thinking and engage directly with the question, then the passage, then each answer choice, making sure the option I choose has firm grounding in the text and answers the question being asked.

About your second scenario above, I will say that I used to think along similar lines, but after working through plenty of questions on my own and helping students with others, I have come to appreciate that the only information you can take as gospel is that which is presented in the passage. Even if the argument or conclusion is wayward, the information on which that argument may be based should not be taken as untruthful or doubtful. In fact, GMAC™ even speaks to this point in the OG in the Critical Reasoning chapter:

4. To test reasoning, try to imagine scenarios where the premises are true and the conclusion false.

Many critical reasoning questions will require you to evaluate the soundness of the reasoning presented in a passage. To evaluate reasoning, you do not need to decide whether premises or conclusions are actually true. Determining actual truth is beyond the scope of the test: no test-taker could determine the truth or falsity of every assertion present in critical reasoning passages. Moreover, many critical reasoning passages refer to fictional scenarios. Normally, in evaluating a piece of reasoning, you should try to imagine a situation in which the premises would all be true with the conclusion false. If such a situation would be very unlikely to occur, then the reasoning is strong. On the other hand, if such a situation could likely occur, then the reasoning is poor.

In the question at hand, the passage tells us that reports of alligators appearing on golf courses and lawns increased dramatically--a premise. Regardless, then, of whether few or many people were present on those golf courses or lawns at the time of most of the sightings, we are meant to take the premise at face value and accept it as a truth, rather than question that those people could be goofballs or on drugs or some such. In choice (A), we are to understand that if the human population of Florida increased significantly during the 1990s (my emphases), then it would make sense that the number of reported sightings might also logically increase, regardless of whether the alligator population had increased significantly. Sometimes the GMAT™ bends over backwards to qualify what ends up being the correct answer--notice how increased significantly in (A) perfectly parallels the last line of the passage. When you spot such adverbial qualifiers in answer choices, you should pause before you get rid of these answer choices. (The qualifier could be pointing you in the right direction.)

I hope that helps. If you have further questions, feel free to ask.

- Andrew
Show more

Hi AndrewN
Thank you for your inputs!
I was stuck between option A and E and chose E based on some grounds. I reviewed the question and my analysis and came up with an understanding why my selection may be wrong.
I seek your guidance for 2 things-
1. Your POV on the corrective analysis
2. Resolution of the query- Whether we may require to make assumptions in strengthen/ weaken qs while considering any option choice :/

1. Corrective analysis
My thought process was that there can fundamentally 2 things could have happened which can help strengthen the author's reasoning-
More people going towards the alligators
More alligators going to the people
Saw A, thought it is bang on, but then thought that yes the population has increased, but highly possible that the population has increased in pockets which may not necessarily be around areas where alligators dwell. Doesnt close the loop. Then while evaluating E, I thought that alligators might generally come to these places when there are less people around. So thought that people are seeing them at such times so not necessary that the population of alligators has increased.
Then thought if such is the nature of alligators and no. of people are the same, the number of sightings should not have increased that too dramatically.

2. This brings me to my question- arent we assuming that the population increase correlates with the population increase of the visitors at the golf courses and lawns? What if the population is growing at the city centres and these lawns are closer to swamps? The population increase may not lead to increased visitors.

Please help me out here- Can we assume things, what are the things we can assume and what is the way by which I can understand that I am overthinking :?

This question has been in my head for quite some time now. Looking forward to your guidance. TIA!
avatar
AndrewN
avatar
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Last visit: 29 Mar 2025
Posts: 3,485
Own Kudos:
7,813
Given Kudos: 500
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 3,485
Kudos: 7,813
In the 1960s, surveys of Florida's alligator population indicated that 03 Aug 2023, 07:27
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
RenB
Hi AndrewN
Thank you for your inputs!
I was stuck between option A and E and chose E based on some grounds. I reviewed the question and my analysis and came up with an understanding why my selection may be wrong.
I seek your guidance for 2 things-
1. Your POV on the corrective analysis
2. Resolution of the query- Whether we may require to make assumptions in strengthen/ weaken qs while considering any option choice :/

1. Corrective analysis
My thought process was that there can fundamentally 2 things could have happened which can help strengthen the author's reasoning-
More people going towards the alligators
More alligators going to the people
Saw A, thought it is bang on, but then thought that yes the population has increased, but highly possible that the population has increased in pockets which may not necessarily be around areas where alligators dwell. Doesnt close the loop. Then while evaluating E, I thought that alligators might generally come to these places when there are less people around. So thought that people are seeing them at such times so not necessary that the population of alligators has increased.
Then thought if such is the nature of alligators and no. of people are the same, the number of sightings should not have increased that too dramatically.

2. This brings me to my question- arent we assuming that the population increase correlates with the population increase of the visitors at the golf courses and lawns? What if the population is growing at the city centres and these lawns are closer to swamps? The population increase may not lead to increased visitors.

Please help me out here- Can we assume things, what are the things we can assume and what is the way by which I can understand that I am overthinking :?

This question has been in my head for quite some time now. Looking forward to your guidance. TIA!
Show more
Hello, RenB. First, if you have an answer that you cannot argue against, then why would you trade it for something else? This is exactly the sort of tradeoff that test-takers make that will ensure that more challenging CR (and, to an extent, RC) questions will remain a toss-up. One of the most useful test-taking techniques I developed for myself and have subsequently taught my students is that you have to have the discipline to silence the voice of doubt that will crop up, and that you should not allow yourself to change an answer unless you can disprove it. Everyone has experienced that awful feeling of having had the correct answer and then changed it. So why not try answering questions the other way, with more confidence that you have selected the safest bet? No more chasing answers. Watch your accuracy go up.

I can tell from reading your second question that you probably misinterpreted reports of alligators appearing on golf courses and lawns. Lawns are part of the property on which people live, so they would not be visitors in these locations. Sure, they could live in swampy areas—some Americans joke that Florida is a giant swamp—but that does not change the fact that reports of sightings have increased dramatically. If the human population has increased significantly, then the number of sightings reported in their front- or backyards alone might understandably increase, regardless of whether the alligator population had also increased dramatically, and here, we get increased sightings at golf courses, just for good measure. You might also refer to my earlier post here, in which I discuss the apparent appeal of most in answer choice (E).

AndrewN
In this question, the argument is that the number of alligators has increased significantly, and regardless of when most sightings occurred, that still leaves room for other types of sightings, those in which many people were present. If, for instance, there were 1,000 sightings, and 501 occurred at times at which few people were present, then what about the other 499? Or, to be fair, if we are basing this conclusion on 3 sightings, when there had been just 1 before--a 200 percent increase!--if two of those three, or most of those sightings occurred at times at which few people were present, that still leaves that third instance, and a lot of people could have seen an alligator. Whatever the case may be, whichever numbers you want to use, choice (E) does not affect the argument in the same way, logically, as (A), for reasons better explained earlier.
Show more
You may want to adopt a path-of-least-resistance approach to CR. You are not looking to make assumptions; rather, you should be looking at which answer choice best fits the linear logic of the passage, so there is the least friction, and that option requires the least in the way of making assumptions.

Thank you for following up. Keep working on identifying just what makes these questions—official questions—tick. Do not create rules, but follow the logical trail of breadcrumbs that GMAC leaves for you.

- Andrew
User avatar
nazii
User avatar
Joined: 29 Oct 2021
Last visit: 04 Aug 2025
Posts: 48
Own Kudos:
94
Given Kudos: 279
Posts: 48
Kudos: 94
In the 1960s, surveys of Florida's alligator population indicated that 12 Nov 2023, 02:03
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hello Dear firend
based on your experience with GMAT real exam and official questions, is there any possibility to see a question very similar to OG questions in real exam? Or is it possible to see the exact question? I tried only to solve OG questions in my preparation, is it enough ?

IanStewart
I'm probably repeating things already posted in this thread, but I haven't read many replies. If an argument read "reports of Adélie penguins in Antarctica increased dramatically between 1800 and 1990, so the Adélie penguin population in Antarctica must have increased dramatically over that period", that argument would very clearly be weakened if we learned "humans first set foot on Antarctica in 1820 or 1821, and in 1990 a few thousand researchers were stationed in Antarctica". When the human population is low (or, as in this example, zero), you won't get many reports regardless of penguin population. When the human population is very high, you may get a lot of reports even about a small population, because every member of that small population might be reported (and some might be reported multiple times).

When we learn here that alligator reports increased, there are at least two competing explanations: maybe there are more alligators to report, or maybe there are more people to make reports. Answer A is a perfect answer here because it suggests an alternate explanation for the facts reported in the stem. And here I'm even ignoring other implications of A (e.g. increased human population might have destroyed natural alligator habitat, and might have led a small population of alligators to migrate to human-populated areas). I'm not sure what's tempting about E; all E suggests to me is that alligators are afraid of people. I suppose if you think this "dramatic increase" in alligator reports was, because the alligators were witnessed only by one or two people, fuelled almost entirely by erroneous reports, then E is a good answer, but that seems awfully tenuous to me.

And to maheswariviresh's concern about whether the OA to some official questions might sometimes be 'wrong': I've seen several thousand official questions (probably more than 10,000) in the many years I've been working in the GMAT field. In that time I've found exactly one official Quant question that had the wrong answer (a Statistics DS question where they neglected to consider the possibility that elements in a set might be negative). On rare occasions, I've found Verbal questions where I think two answers are justifiable, and there is a subtle difference between them that would make one preferable to the other. I've never found an official Verbal question where I'd consider the OA to be wrong, however. That makes official Verbal questions very different from prep company Verbal questions; the OA to prep co Verbal questions seems to me to be wrong about a quarter of the time, judging from the questions I read on this forum (I've very often posted replies to CR questions here pointing out issues with prep company OAs).

It's probable many test takers don't appreciate the extraordinary lengths GMAC goes to in order to ensure the quality of each test question that appears on the GMAT. Every test question undergoes an extensive editorial process, but question development doesn't stop there. Then each question is used as a purely diagnostic question on actual tests, and the response data is analyzed. If a question had an incorrect OA, they would discover it at that stage: the data would reveal that high-level test takers were mostly getting the question wrong. That can never happen with a real GMAT question, so they'd need to revisit the question, correct the issue, and use the revised version again as a diagnostic question, and only if the question had normal response patterns could they consider using it as an actual test question that counted.

Posted from my mobile device
Show more
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 25 Sep 2026
Posts: 7,399
Own Kudos:
71,731
 [2]
Given Kudos: 2,204
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,399
Kudos: 71,731
 [2]
In the 1960s, surveys of Florida's alligator population indicated that 24 Nov 2023, 09:44
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
nazii
Hello Dear firend
based on your experience with GMAT real exam and official questions, is there any possibility to see a question very similar to OG questions in real exam? Or is it possible to see the exact question? I tried only to solve OG questions in my preparation, is it enough ?
Show more
Every question in the OGs is a retired, official question that was once part of the actual exam. So every question you'll see on the actual GMAT is written according to the same specifications as the questions in the OGs.

You won't see the exact same questions on the actual exam, though. Once a question is retired and published in the OGs, it will never again appear on the actual test.

I hope that helps a bit!
User avatar
TheVDR
User avatar
Joined: 09 Jun 2023
Last visit: 05 Nov 2025
Posts: 253
Own Kudos:
236
Given Kudos: 20
Location: India
Posts: 253
Kudos: 236
In the 1960s, surveys of Florida's alligator population indicated that 11 Jul 2024, 02:29
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
My line of thinking for (E) was given that only a few people at a time were present at an alligator sighting, it is quite possible that the same alligator is being sighted by a different groups of a few people. This would eventually mean that number of sightings has increased for the same alligator and not the alligator population of Florida.

Can't understand why is this line of thinking wrong?

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 25 Sep 2026
Posts: 7,399
Own Kudos:
71,731
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,204
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,399
Kudos: 71,731
 [1]
In the 1960s, surveys of Florida's alligator population indicated that 16 Aug 2024, 06:51
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
vardanrathi7
My line of thinking for (E) was given that only a few people at a time were present at an alligator sighting, it is quite possible that the same alligator is being sighted by a different groups of a few people. This would eventually mean that number of sightings has increased for the same alligator and not the alligator population of Florida.

Can't understand why is this line of thinking wrong?

Posted from my mobile device
Show more
­Your explanation is certainly possible. Maybe the same small group of alligators is running amok all over town, accounting for a large chunk of those sightings.

But being possible isn't the same as being likely, and (E) doesn't present any evidence showing that this is actually the case. It's just as likely -- if not more likely -- that the sightings are in fact different alligators and that repeat sightings aren't skewing the data very much. At least not enough to account for the DRAMATIC increase in sightings.

So yeah, you can come up with a scenario that's consistent with choice (E) that MIGHT weaken the argument. But without more information, (E) isn't enough to weaken the argument, and (A) is a much better choice.
User avatar
SmileAndSolve
User avatar
Joined: 25 Aug 2024
Last visit: 25 Sep 2026
Posts: 86
Own Kudos:
52
Given Kudos: 348
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 4
Products:
My Reviews GMAT Club Tests
Posts: 86
Kudos: 52
In the 1960s, surveys of Florida's alligator population indicated that 20 Jun 2025, 11:21
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
✅ Correct Answer: (A)
"The human population of Florida increased significantly during the 1990s."

Why this weakens:

More people = more development (e.g., homes, golf courses) near gator habitats.

So even if the alligator population stayed constant, more humans = more chances to see them.

This gives an alternative explanation for increased sightings:

Not more alligators, but more people in their space.

👉 This directly attacks the argument’s logic that more sightings = more gators.

❌ Why (E) is wrong (or weaker):
"Most of the sightings... occurred at times at which few people were present on those golf courses and lawns."

This might weaken the impact of the sightings (fewer people saw them), but it doesn't challenge the core logic of the argument — that increased sightings = increased population.

The conclusion isn’t based on how many people saw gators at once.

It’s based on the total number of sightings, regardless of audience size.

So while (E) is interesting, it’s irrelevant to the central assumption.
User avatar
NEYR0N
User avatar
Joined: 12 Feb 2025
Last visit: 27 Jan 2026
Posts: 89
Own Kudos:
15
Given Kudos: 66
Posts: 89
Kudos: 15
In the 1960s, surveys of Florida's alligator population indicated that 15 Aug 2025, 04:31
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I'm requesting an experts reply because this isn't addressed anywhere:

The causal mechanism states: ???More alligators cause more reports.???
C choice : Could this instead be a case of reverse causation ??? meaning that more reports (suggesting a higher population) lead to an actual perceived increase in alligators? thanks in advance
User avatar
MartyMurray
User avatar
Joined: 11 Aug 2023
Last visit: 26 Sep 2026
Posts: 2,177
Own Kudos:
8,312
Given Kudos: 247
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 2,177
Kudos: 8,312
In the 1960s, surveys of Florida's alligator population indicated that 15 Aug 2025, 22:48
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
INprimesItrust
I'm requesting an experts reply because this isn't addressed anywhere:

The causal mechanism states: ???More alligators cause more reports.???
C choice : Could this instead be a case of reverse causation ??? meaning that more reports (suggesting a higher population) lead to an actual perceived increase in alligators? thanks in advance
Show more
An issue with that line of reasoning it that it doesn't include any reason for the increase in sightings in lakes and swamps.

You're basically saying that the increase in reports may have been caused by an increase in reports.

I guess it's possible that an increase in reports could cause another increase in reports. At the same time, in that case, why did the first increase in reports, the sightings of alligators in lakes and swamps, occur? The initial increase could have been caused by an increase in the population of alligators, meaning that (C) still supports the conclusion that the alligator population increased.

Also, there's not really any reason to believe that an increase in sightings in lakes and swamps would have caused a "dramatic" increase in reports of alligators appearing on golf courses and lawns. If (C) had said something along the lines of "Alligator sightings in the news caused people to become more aware of alligators," then we'd have reason to believe that the first increase in sightings caused the second. At the same time, without such a clear clue in the answer choice, we don't really have a good reason to create such a story.

In general, many scenarios are possible, but in analyzing CR answer choices, we have to go with what's clearly likely or somehow clearly supported rather than with a scenario that may be possible but isn't clearly indicated to be likely.
User avatar
NEYR0N
User avatar
Joined: 12 Feb 2025
Last visit: 27 Jan 2026
Posts: 89
Own Kudos:
15
Given Kudos: 66
Posts: 89
Kudos: 15
In the 1960s, surveys of Florida's alligator population indicated that 16 Aug 2025, 03:28
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
apologies , I meant A shows a reverse causation. NOT C. really sorry about that MartyMurray,

P.S. thanks for your Youtube videos
MartyMurray
INprimesItrust
I'm requesting an experts reply because this isn't addressed anywhere:

The causal mechanism states: ???More alligators cause more reports.???
C choice : Could this instead be a case of reverse causation ??? meaning that more reports (suggesting a higher population) lead to an actual perceived increase in alligators? thanks in advance
An issue with that line of reasoning it that it doesn't include any reason for the increase in sightings in lakes and swamps.

You're basically saying that the increase in reports may have been caused by an increase in reports.

I guess it's possible that an increase in reports could cause another increase in reports. At the same time, in that case, why did the first increase in reports, the sightings of alligators in lakes and swamps, occur? The initial increase could have been caused by an increase in the population of alligators, meaning that (C) still supports the conclusion that the alligator population increased.

Also, there's not really any reason to believe that an increase in sightings in lakes and swamps would have caused a "dramatic" increase in reports of alligators appearing on golf courses and lawns. If (C) had said something along the lines of "Alligator sightings in the news caused people to become more aware of alligators," then we'd have reason to believe that the first increase in sightings caused the second. At the same time, without such a clear clue in the answer choice, we don't really have a good reason to create such a story.

In general, many scenarios are possible, but in analyzing CR answer choices, we have to go with what's clearly likely or somehow clearly supported rather than with a scenario that may be possible but isn't clearly indicated to be likely.
Show more
User avatar
MartyMurray
User avatar
Joined: 11 Aug 2023
Last visit: 26 Sep 2026
Posts: 2,177
Own Kudos:
8,312
 [1]
Given Kudos: 247
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 2,177
Kudos: 8,312
 [1]
In the 1960s, surveys of Florida's alligator population indicated that 16 Aug 2025, 16:51
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
INprimesItrust
apologies , I meant A shows a reverse causation. NOT C. really sorry about that MartyMurray,

P.S. thanks for your Youtube videos
MartyMurray
INprimesItrust
I'm requesting an experts reply because this isn't addressed anywhere:

The causal mechanism states: ???More alligators cause more reports.???
C choice : Could this instead be a case of reverse causation ??? meaning that more reports (suggesting a higher population) lead to an actual perceived increase in alligators? thanks in advance
An issue with that line of reasoning it that it doesn't include any reason for the increase in sightings in lakes and swamps.

You're basically saying that the increase in reports may have been caused by an increase in reports.

I guess it's possible that an increase in reports could cause another increase in reports. At the same time, in that case, why did the first increase in reports, the sightings of alligators in lakes and swamps, occur? The initial increase could have been caused by an increase in the population of alligators, meaning that (C) still supports the conclusion that the alligator population increased.

Also, there's not really any reason to believe that an increase in sightings in lakes and swamps would have caused a "dramatic" increase in reports of alligators appearing on golf courses and lawns. If (C) had said something along the lines of "Alligator sightings in the news caused people to become more aware of alligators," then we'd have reason to believe that the first increase in sightings caused the second. At the same time, without such a clear clue in the answer choice, we don't really have a good reason to create such a story.

In general, many scenarios are possible, but in analyzing CR answer choices, we have to go with what's clearly likely or somehow clearly supported rather than with a scenario that may be possible but isn't clearly indicated to be likely.
Show more
Oh, OK .. haha ... that makes more sense.

Still, (A) doesn't really indicate that there's reverse causation.

Reverse causation involves a supposed cause of an effect being instead caused by the supposed effect.

In the case of (A), reports of alligators appearing on lawns and golf courses would not have caused an increase in the alligator population. So, the idea that reverse causation is possible isn't really correct.

On another note, I appreciate the kind words about the videos, and I'm glad you found them helpful.
User avatar
PG695
User avatar
Joined: 22 Nov 2025
Last visit: 10 Apr 2026
Posts: 6
Own Kudos:
2
Given Kudos: 35
Posts: 6
Kudos: 2
In the 1960s, surveys of Florida's alligator population indicated that 21 Dec 2025, 09:56
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The key is to notice "reports of alligator appearances." The difference between A) and E) is here:

A) The human population of Florida increased significantly during the 1990s.

E) Most of the sightings of alligators on golf courses and lawns in the 1990s occurred at times at which few people were present on those golf courses and lawns.

A) states the probable alternative explanation that directly connects to the "reports of alligator appearances." It shows that the increase in report numbers could come from the increase in Florida population.

E) shows that there are few people seeing the alligators, we, however, need to add another layer to connect (or even make up an unsupported assumption) that few witnesses = unreliable/questionable source of report.

Now, to make E) be a more favourable choice in some way, the choice could alternatively be: "...few people were present and most of the witnesses mistook a giant lizard with an alligator" :facepalm_man:


parkhydel
In the 1960s, surveys of Florida's alligator population indicated that the population was dwindling rapidly. Hunting alligators was banned. By the early 1990s, the alligator population had recovered, and restricted hunting was allowed. Over the course of the 1990s, reports of alligators appearing on golf courses and lawns increased dramatically. Therefore, in spite of whatever alligator hunting went on, the alligator population must have increased significantly over the decade of the 1990s.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. The human population of Florida increased significantly during the 1990s.
B. The hunting restrictions applied to commercial as well as private hunters.
C. The number of sightings of alligators in lakes and swamps increased greatly in Florida during the 1990s.
D. Throughout the 1990s, selling alligator products was more strictly regulated than hunting was.
E. Most of the sightings of alligators on golf courses and lawns in the 1990s occurred at times at which few people were present on those golf courses and lawns.


CR91630.02

Solving this question helps. Taking a timed set of similar questions in GMAT Club Forum Quiz → is even better.
Show more
   1   2   3   4   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7399 posts
AbhishekP220108
Verbal Forum Moderator
705 posts