Conclusion: the new survey did not affect wildlife, in fact the wildlife increased in the decade.

We need to strengthen this claim

A..seems good lets keep it.

B..weakens the argument, as weather can skew the survey numbers so claim cannot be made.
C:migration of birds helped incresed the survey numbers, so the growth is not organic. And survey numbers cannot be trusted.
D..survey techniques are not same, that means the new housing can play a role. Doesnt strengthen the argument.
E.again the survey did not have same baselines, out.

Only A is clearly helping the argument.

Posted from my mobile device

+1 for A.

Stimulus :
Tow different surveys of the park’s wildlife were conducted before the recent property development bordering a national park . The latter states that the amount of wildlife in the park actually increased over the intervening decade. Hence, the property development did not hurt the park’s wildlife.


(A) While both surveys found the same species of animals in the park, the more recent survey found greater numbers of animals belonging to each species. --> Correct, considering each species of wildlife and the change within the species shows that the number has increased for wildlife for each species, hence strengthener
(B) The more recent survey was taken in the summer, when the diversity of wildlife in the park is at its greatest. --> Weakener
(C) Migration of wildlife into the park from the adjacent developing areas has increased animal populations to levels beyond those that the resources of the park could have supported a decade ago. --> Irrelevant
(D) The most recent techniques for surveying wildlife are better at locating difficult-to-find animals than were older techniques. --> Weakener
(E) The more recent survey not only involved counting the animals found in the park but, unlike the earlier survey, also provided an inventory of the plant life found within the park. --> Irrelevant

Hence, A.
_________________

A great problem to demonstrate how reasoning works in a typical strengthening question!

Conclusion:

... in a national park the amount of wildlife increased over the decade in which development took place next to the park...AND...the park's resources can support its current wildlife populations without strain.
Say Thanks by clicking Kudos!
_________________

(A) seems to weaken the argument? It says that there is an extra element added to the counting of the the species, whereas the earlier one didn't count. This is telling us that the specie population has not increased or not is in doubt.

Hi Lakshya

It is not clear what extra element has been added to the counting of the species. According to option (A), two counts are mentioned:

1) both surveys found the same species of animals in the park - this can only be stated if the species were listed out (and hence, counted) in both the surveys.
2) greater numbers of animals belonging to each species - this too can only be stated if the number of animals in each species was counted both the surveys.

This option eliminates a potential weakener - it could have been possible for the overall increase in wildlife to come from only a few species with the others declining. This would reject the conclusion that "recent property development bordering a national park has not adversely affected the park 's wildlife". Option (A) eliminates this possibility and hence is a strengthener.

Hope this helps.
_________________

The argument’s conclusion is that the recent property development has not adversely affected the park’s wildlife. The question asks that we find an answer choice that strengthens this argument. In other words, which answer choice provides further reason to believe that the development has not adversely affected the wildlife?


The passage has already established that the overall amount of wildlife has increased since the development began. But what if that hides the harm of the development on certain species because other species have increased or new species have replaced the harmed species?

(A) indicates that a deeper look into the survey’s results reveal that the same species exist and that the number of animals in each species has increased. This assures us that no particular species has been harmed. In fact, it indicates that each species has flourished since the development began.

Therefore, (A) strengthens the argument that the development has not adversely affected the park’s wildlife, and it is the best answer choice.

I hope that helps!
_________________

GMATNinja

I had confusion betweeen A & C. Eventually i chose C

Can you please explain why C is incorrect?
_________________

Here's my take

(A) While both surveys found the same species of animals in the park, the more recent survey found greater numbers of animals belonging to each species.

So this infact says that there is no adverse effect because the number of animals increased

(C) Migration of wildlife into the park from the adjacent developing areas has increased animal populations to levels beyond those that the resources of the park could have supported a decade ago.

it is clearly saying that migration from the adjacent developing areas i.e. the nearby development has affected the wildlife
also it is talking about 10 years ago but we need to find what strengthens the premise that the development has not affected wildlife after the development
_________________

Hatakekakashi
Hey thanks for explanation.. i totally overlooked adjacent developing areas.
_________________

New evidence indicates that recent property development bordering a national park has not adversely affected the park 's wildlife. On the contrary, a comparison of the most recent survey of the park's wildlife with one conducted just prior to the development shows that the amount of wildlife has in fact increased over the intervening decade. Moreover, the park's resources can support its current wildlife populations without strain.

Analysis

The conclusion is that adjacent property development has not adversely affected the national park. Premises: In support of the conclusion, the argument presents the results of a recent survey, which shows that amount of wildlife increased over the intervening decade. The author also states that the park's resources can support the wildlife strains.

(A) While both surveys found the same species of animals in the park, the more recent survey found greater numbers of animals belonging to each species. -- Adds to the result of recent survey that not only the number of species but also the raw numbers of animals have also increased. Keep.

(B) The more recent survey was taken in the summer, when the diversity of wildlife in the park is at its greatest. -- Weakener. This choice implicitly questions the survey results by calling into question its timing. Eliminate.

(C) Migration of wildlife into the park from the adjacent developing areas has increased animal populations to levels beyond those that the resources of the park could have supported a decade ago. -- Weakener. If the park could not sustain it a decade ago, surely it can't sustain it now. Eliminate.

(D) The most recent techniques for surveying wildlife are better at locating difficult-to-find animals than were older techniques. -- Not relevant to our argument of supporting the adjacent property development.

(E) The more recent survey not only involved counting the animals found in the park but, unlike the earlier survey, also provided an inventory of the plant life found within the park. -- Not relevant since our argument is only about animals. Eliminate.

Don't we already know A from the passage?

New evidence indicates that recent property development bordering a national park has not adversely affected the park 's wildlife. On the contrary, a comparison of the most recent survey of the park's wildlife with one conducted just prior to the development shows that the amount of wildlife has in fact increased over the intervening decade. Moreover, the park's resources can support its current wildlife populations without strain.
_________________