Between 1960 and 1970, ivory poachers in the African nation

Question

Between 1960 and 1970, ivory poachers in the African nation of Zinbaku killed over 6,500 elephants. During that period, the total elephant population in Zinbaku fell from about 35,000 to just under 30,000. In 1970, new anti-poaching measures were implemented in Zinbaku, and between 1970 and 1980 over 800 poachers were arrested and expelled from the country. Nevertheless, by 1980, the elephant population in Zinbaku had fallen to about 21,000.

Which of the following, if true, would best help to explain the apparent paradox presented above?

A.The poachers arrested in Zinbaku between 1970 and 1980 were rarely sentenced to long prison terms

B.Because of highly publicized campaigns against the slaughter of elephants, demand for ivory fell between 1970 and 1980

C.The elephant population in neighbouring Mombasa rose slightly between 1970 and 1980

D.In Zinbaku, between 1970 and 1980, thousands of acres of forest, the elephant's natural habitat, were cleared for farming

E.None of these

Posted from my mobile device

KaushalKhatri · Answer

How can we imply that losing habitat result in decline in elephant's population? No where it is mentioned. How can we imply that losing habitat result in decline in elephant's population? No where it is mentioned.

rajshreeasati · Answer

I was realllly confused b/w A and D and I went with A because it was directly hitting the conclusion that the elephant population has decreased even more.

My logic for A was - if the pochers were not sentenced to a long term prison, they would be okay with poching more elephants and going jail for a brief period of time, coming back and poching again, which led to decrease in the population of E.

My logic for rejecting D was - there habitat was destroyed, doesnt mean that Elephants died because of that, maybe they got dispalaced and wen somewhere else in some other jungle or something like that.

Please somebody explain why D is right.

Konstantin1983 · Answer

What is the source of this question? I wonder that on real GMAT one would see something like Option E

Livelifeloud20 · Answer

rajshreeasati We can reject A as it is mentioned in the argument that the poachers were expelled from the country.
Option D says the habitat were cleared off so even if they moved to other places which means the population of the elephant decreased in Zinbaku if not by animal killing but by their migration. So D resolves that paradox.
Hope it helps

Darknight123 · Answer

The paradox can be explained if an option offers an alternate reason for the decrease of population. Option D does that.

Posted from my mobile device

pratiksha1998 · Answer

My thinking was, though the elephant population has decreased, it does not mean that they died. It is also possible that they migrated to a different place, which is why D holds true.

Between 1960 and 1970, ivory poachers in the African nation

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Between 1960 and 1970, ivory poachers in the African nation

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards