vasuca10 wrote:
VeritasPrepHailey mam Please explain this question and process of elimination
I am still unable to link how increase in human population in 1990s can show that there is no increase in alligator's population
Sure thing
vasuca10!
(As a Floridian, this question's representation of Florida as "hunting, alligators, and golf courses" definitely gave me a laugh!
![Laughing :lol:](https://cdn.gmatclub.com/cdn/files/forum/images/smilies/1f602.png)
)
So, if we start with the question stem, we can see that we're looking to weaken the argument. In this case, we're looking to weaken the connection between the fact that "reports of alligators appearing on golf courses and lawns increased dramatically" and the conclusion that "in spite of whatever alligator hunting went on, the alligator population must have increased significantly over the decade of the 1990s."
Quote:
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?
Basically, we want something that tells us that it might
not make sense to use the evidence of an increase in alligator reports to conclude that the alligator population must have increased significantly. I'd point out, this is a bit different from what you verbalized. We aren't necessarily looking for something that definitively tells us the alligator population did not or could not have increased, we just need something that breaks up the connection between evidence and conclusion and presents a case where it might not make sense to use the increase in reports to conclude that the alligator population has increased. Let's take a look at the answers!
A. The human population of Florida increased significantly during the 1990s.
<- Hmmm... we were told *reports* of alligator sightings have increased. Does that necessarily mean that the population of alligators has increased? The argument seems to conflate increased reports with increased population, but that doesn't have to be true. If there are more people around to see and report alligators, it wouldn't necessarily make sense to use the change in sightings to draw conclusions about the population. (this is a common gap in reasoning we want to be on the lookout for in GMAT CR!)B. The hunting restrictions applied to commercial as well as private hunters.
<- Who the hunting restrictions applied to doesn't really matter to us here. This does nothing to tell us why it might not make sense to use the given evidence to draw the cited conclusion. C. The number of sightings of alligators in lakes and swamps increased greatly in Florida during the 1990s.
<- Providing additional sources of alligator sightings definitely doesn't weaken the connection between evidence and conclusion. This just provides further evidence that more alligator sightings are taking place. We need something that specifically breaks up the connection between sightings and population. D. Throughout the 1990s, selling alligator products was more strictly regulated than hunting was.
<- ....Okay, so what? Even if people are more limited in their ability to sell gator jerky and gator-skin boots, this does nothing to break up the connection between the sightings reported and population. 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.
<- Well, we only need one person around to "see something and say something" about the alligators, so this definitely doesn't tell us that the reports cannot be used to substantiate an increase in population. If anything, if few people are present when the sightings occur *and* the reports of sightings increase, it would be less likely that we have repeat sightings where many people make the same report. So, definitely not a weakener here. Keep in mind, we aren't trying to weaken the evidence... it's already been presented as fact. We have already been told that sightings increased during this time. We want something that tells us increased sightings does not necessarily = increased alligator population. So, if we get to the core of the argument, we're looking for something that addresses how *despite* the apparent evidence, the conclusion might be false. If the increase in reports is driven by the increase in people around to make reports, rather than by an increase in alligator population, it would no longer make sense to use data concerning reports to draw conclusions about the alligator population. So, (A) is our correct answer!
(Now, while I generally strongly urge students *not* to bring in their outside knowledge/bias in questions, I will say that I've seen this phenomenon firsthand! During months of heavy tourism/vacationing in Florida, reports of alligators (and other wildlife) *do* spike drastically. This spike is not because we have a spike in alligator population during specifically those months of the year, or because animals also trek down to Florida for their vacation, it's because there are abundantly more people around to observe and call in these wildlife sightings!)
It sounds like you may have run into trouble here because you were too focused on the conclusion on its own. Keep in mind, when we weaken an argument, we're looking to weaken the
connection between evidence and conclusion, and we can do so by identifying the gap in reasoning between these components and asking ourselves "why might it not make sense to use this evidence to draw the given conclusion?" as we analyze our options. While there are many things that *could* expose the gap in logic between "reports" and "population," if we find the gap, it becomes easier to see which answer choice addresses this gap. Here, answer (A) does the trick, as it gives us reason to believe an increase in reports may not equate to an increase in alligator population.
I hope this helps!