keyashah0312 wrote:
Can you plz help me that Why Option E is correct?
I mean what's the connection with food here?
Hi Keya
Good question.
The question stimulus does not mention anything about the food or its availability. However, let us analyze the premises and the conclusion given in the stimulus.
Conclusion: If the rattles were not so brittle, one could reliably determine a rattlesnake's age simply from the number of sections in its rattle, because one new section is formed each time a rattlesnake molts.
Premises: The folktale that claims that a rattlesnake's age can be determined from the number of sections in its rattle is false, but only because the rattles are brittle and sometimes partially or completely break off.
Essentially, the conclusion is that except for brittleness, there is
no other factor that prevents us from determining a rattle snake's age just by counting the number of sections in its rattle, since a new section is formed every time it molts (sheds skin). Therefore, the underlying assumption is that all other factors (apart from brittleness) have no impact on either the rattle sections directly, or on the molting of the snakes (this is important because a new rattle section is formed every time the snake molts, hence, anything that impacts the frequency of molting will impact the age obtained by counting the number of sections in the rattle).
Option (E) presents food as one factor that could potentially impact the frequency of molting, and states that it has no impact. This is consistent with our assessment above. The negation method also points to (E) as explained in an earlier post. Clearly (E) is the best answer available among the options.
Hope this helps.