|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
dcummins
Joined: 14 Feb 2017
Last visit: 16 Mar 2026
Posts: 1,021
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 368
Location: Australia
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
Schools: INSEAD Sept'21 Intake (WA$$$) Melbourne (A$$$$) AGSM (A$$$$) Kellogg '23 (WL) Said '22 (A$$$$) CBS '23 (D) Booth '23 (WA) Anderson '23 (WA) Cambridge '22 (WL) LBS '23 (D) Stern '24 (WA)
GMAT 1: 560 Q41 V26
GMAT 2: 550 Q43 V23
GMAT 3: 650 Q47 V33
GMAT 4: 650 Q44 V36
GMAT 5: 600 Q38 V35
GMAT 6: 710 Q47 V41
WE:Management Consulting (Consulting)
Products:
Schools: INSEAD Sept'21 Intake (WA$$$) Melbourne (A$$$$) AGSM (A$$$$) Kellogg '23 (WL) Said '22 (A$$$$) CBS '23 (D) Booth '23 (WA) Anderson '23 (WA) Cambridge '22 (WL) LBS '23 (D) Stern '24 (WA)
GMAT 6: 710 Q47 V41
Posts: 1,021
Kudos:
2,379
11 Oct 2019, 17:43
Kudos
Bookmarks
Conclusion: Increase in fatalities must be due to increase in humans living in A's habitats
Assumption: (determined after reading conclusion and premises) developments took place in former alligator habitats
This is based on the fact there has been a dramatic increase in the #people killed by alligators in the past 1 year and in this same time new houses, goldf courses and shops have been established.
A is correct- fatalities dramatically increased in the last year and the program to kill eggs ended 2 years ago, so logically if eggs aren't destroyed then more alligators are born and thus the alligator population is larger
B is incorrect - as caution doesn't negate the fact that fatalities increased
C is incorrect - how is the fatality rate of another wild animal related to the increase in fatalities from alligators? It isn't..
D is incorrect -this actually validates the assumption and thus strengthens the answer
E is incorrect - undeveloped doesn't mean these areas are inhabited by alligators - that's 1 assumption we need to make, next 5% could be a really insignificant amount of land. What if the increase in alligator fatalities occurred across 40% of the land? It's hard to see how we can weaken the argument without spinning some story.
Assumption: (determined after reading conclusion and premises) developments took place in former alligator habitats
This is based on the fact there has been a dramatic increase in the #people killed by alligators in the past 1 year and in this same time new houses, goldf courses and shops have been established.
A is correct- fatalities dramatically increased in the last year and the program to kill eggs ended 2 years ago, so logically if eggs aren't destroyed then more alligators are born and thus the alligator population is larger
B is incorrect - as caution doesn't negate the fact that fatalities increased
C is incorrect - how is the fatality rate of another wild animal related to the increase in fatalities from alligators? It isn't..
D is incorrect -this actually validates the assumption and thus strengthens the answer
E is incorrect - undeveloped doesn't mean these areas are inhabited by alligators - that's 1 assumption we need to make, next 5% could be a really insignificant amount of land. What if the increase in alligator fatalities occurred across 40% of the land? It's hard to see how we can weaken the argument without spinning some story.
14 Oct 2019, 07:57
Kudos
Bookmarks
In the past year, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of people killed by alligators in Florida. During this same time, there has been an increase in the development of new houses, golf courses, and shopping areas in former wilderness areas within the state. Therefore, the increase in fatal alligator attacks must have been caused by the increase in the number of humans living in the alligator’s habitat.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls into question the explanation above?
Prethink: It's not the development done by humans, but something else has caused this issue
A. Two years ago, a government initiative to reduce the alligator population size by destroying alligator eggs ended.
-> Good one. If alligators egg are no longer destroyed their number would have increased from last two years. At least more than what it used to be when program was running
B. An increase in fatal alligator attacks tends to make people more cautious around lakes, ponds, swamps and canals.
-> This should have decreased the number of attack. Doesn't help us here
C. The number of people killed by snake bites, spider bites and scorpion stings in Florida has held steady for many years.
-> Good candidate, lets come back to this
D. Many of the new state residents have moved to newly constructed areas near water that is suitable for habitation by alligators.
->This help the argument and doesn't weakens it. Opposite of what we want
E. The undeveloped areas of Florida have decreased in area by 5% in the past year.
->Not sure if this area is same as where alligators were living
Why Not C?
We are assuming that alligators and these reptiles share same area. More over if snake bite have not increased, this means land explanation is not done in the snake zone. But doesn't confirm expansion was done in the alligator zone either. So in C we are assuming too many things to support the argument
Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls into question the explanation above?
Prethink: It's not the development done by humans, but something else has caused this issue
A. Two years ago, a government initiative to reduce the alligator population size by destroying alligator eggs ended.
-> Good one. If alligators egg are no longer destroyed their number would have increased from last two years. At least more than what it used to be when program was running
B. An increase in fatal alligator attacks tends to make people more cautious around lakes, ponds, swamps and canals.
-> This should have decreased the number of attack. Doesn't help us here
C. The number of people killed by snake bites, spider bites and scorpion stings in Florida has held steady for many years.
-> Good candidate, lets come back to this
D. Many of the new state residents have moved to newly constructed areas near water that is suitable for habitation by alligators.
->This help the argument and doesn't weakens it. Opposite of what we want
E. The undeveloped areas of Florida have decreased in area by 5% in the past year.
->Not sure if this area is same as where alligators were living
Why Not C?
We are assuming that alligators and these reptiles share same area. More over if snake bite have not increased, this means land explanation is not done in the snake zone. But doesn't confirm expansion was done in the alligator zone either. So in C we are assuming too many things to support the argument
21 Oct 2019, 09:32
Kudos
Bookmarks
2 things happened
A-----> In the past year, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of people killed by alligators in Florida.
B-----> During this same time, there has been an increase in the development of new houses, golf courses, and shopping areas in former wilderness areas within the state.
Therefore, the increase in fatal alligator attacks must have been caused by the increase in the number of humans living in the alligator’s habitat.
The author takes 2 events and concludes that fatal alligator attacks must have been caused by the increase in the number of humans living in the alligator’s habitat.
This is a classic example of taking 2 events that happened simultaneously and trying to establish a cause and effect relation
what if it was a co incidence. There is no evidence given by the author that these events are causally related.
To weaken this we have to show that these events are not causally related or that number of attacks increased not cause of increased human population living in alligator's habitat.
Option A . Two years ago, a government initiative to reduce the alligator population size by destroying alligator eggs ended.
This gives us a clear indication that the thing which reduced alligator population stopped. Therefore now there were more alligators in the wild. This shows us that alligator attacks increased not cause of increase in human population, but cause there were now more alligators than before.
A-----> In the past year, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of people killed by alligators in Florida.
B-----> During this same time, there has been an increase in the development of new houses, golf courses, and shopping areas in former wilderness areas within the state.
Therefore, the increase in fatal alligator attacks must have been caused by the increase in the number of humans living in the alligator’s habitat.
The author takes 2 events and concludes that fatal alligator attacks must have been caused by the increase in the number of humans living in the alligator’s habitat.
This is a classic example of taking 2 events that happened simultaneously and trying to establish a cause and effect relation
what if it was a co incidence. There is no evidence given by the author that these events are causally related.
To weaken this we have to show that these events are not causally related or that number of attacks increased not cause of increased human population living in alligator's habitat.
Option A . Two years ago, a government initiative to reduce the alligator population size by destroying alligator eggs ended.
This gives us a clear indication that the thing which reduced alligator population stopped. Therefore now there were more alligators in the wild. This shows us that alligator attacks increased not cause of increase in human population, but cause there were now more alligators than before.
