Farmer: Several people in the past few years have claimed to have seen a mountain lion in the suburban outskirts—the latest just last month—and, while mountain lions were thought to have been driven from this entire region about twenty years ago, there is no reason for the people who reported seeing a mountain lion to have deliberately concocted a false report. Therefore, local wildlife managers should begin to urgently address the mountain lion's presence.
Which of the following would, if true, most seriously weaken the farmer's argument?
A. Farmers in the suburban outskirts mostly raise cattle and hogs, which when fully grown are generally not attacked by mountain lions.
B. Mountain lions are dissimilar in size and color to other wild animals found near the suburban outskirts.
C. No person who claimed to have seen a mountain lion had anyone else with them at the purported sighting.
D. There have been no regional reports in the past year of mountain lions migrating to the area.
E. Recent surveys show that more than half of the people in the region report that they have never seen a mountain lion before.
A brilliant question yet again from GMAC.
The focus on this question should be on the year stats.
Farmer: Several people in the
past few years have claimed to have seen a mountain lion in the suburban outskirts—the
latest just last month—and, while mountain lions were thought to have been driven from this entire region about twenty years ago, there is no reason for the people who reported seeing a mountain lion to have deliberately concocted a false report. Therefore, local wildlife managers should begin to
urgently address the mountain lion's presence.
So , let's focus on the highlighted parts here.
Ok ...the argument says that the "wildlife managers should
urgently address the matter"...thus we need to strengthen the opposite..i.e "wildlife managers should
NOT urgently address the matter".
Start eliminating now:
A. Farmers in the suburban outskirts mostly raise cattle and hogs, which when
fully grown are generally not attacked by mountain lions.
-what about the non fully grown ones!!--gone!
B. Mountain lions are dissimilar in size and color to other wild animals found near the suburban outskirts.
-This option actually strengths the original conclusion...i.e if lions are dissimilar in size and color, then there is not a single bit of confusion, and hence the matter should urgently be addressed.
D.There have been no regional reports in the past year of mountain lions migrating to the area.
-To eliminate this option , look at the 2nd highlighted part (last month) of the argument above...this option talks about "past year", but people have reported the sightings in the last month too..so what about the last month reporting......Gone!
E.Recent surveys show that more than half of the people in the region report that they have never seen a mountain lion before.
-This option talks about Majority (more than half)...ok...so two points here :
1)If 51% of the population have never seen a mountain lion before but the rest 49% of the population have seen and reports then definitely, urgent action needs to be taken.
2)If 98% of the population have never seen a mountain lion before but the rest 2% of the population have seen and reports then OK action can be taken but not necessarily an urgent one.
this option works as - "can be and can be not"...Gone!
C.No person who claimed to have seen a mountain lion had anyone else with them at the purported sighting.
-Finally.. this option says that any person ,who claimed to have seen the lion, saw it all alone... OK we can address the issue but not on an urgent basis...Thus it swings only one way..thus it weakens the claim that wildlife managers need to address on
urgent basis.
I hope it helps!