New evidence indicates that recent property development bordering a na

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.

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.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(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. POE helps. Only issue is if someone mixes up D in this as in the technique is better in identifying the animal population. But that's not the case.
(B) The more recent survey was taken in the summer, when the diversity of wildlife in the park is at its greatest. - WRONG. Diversity is irrelevant. Nothing about increase in amount of animal life.
(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. - WRONG. Another reason for increase. Weakens.
(D) The most recent techniques for surveying wildlife are better at locating difficult-to-find animals than were older techniques. - WRONG. Weakens instead as more number of animals are found and that more is because of technique when it should have been because of proper 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. - WRONG. Plant life is irrelevant in the passage's context.

Answer A.