Hawks in a certain region depend heavily for their diet

Question

Hawks in a certain region depend heavily for their diet on a particular variety of field mouse. The killing of field mice by farmers will seriously endanger the survival of hawks in this region.
Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the conclusion drawn above?

A. The number of mice killed by farmers has increased in recent years.

B. Farmers kill many other types of pests besides field mice without any adverse effect on hawks.

C. Hawks have been found in other areas besides this region.

D. Killing field mice leaves more food for the remaining mice, who have larger broods the following season.

E. Hawks are also endangered because of pollution and deforestation.

Give Kudos if you like the question!

hussainmarif · Answer

why coudnt it be E? Please explain?

AyushiN · Answer

Please explain the answer.
Thank You.

b9n920 · Answer

Hawks in a certain region depend heavily for their diet on a particular variety of field mouse. The killing of field mice by farmers will seriously endanger the survival of  hawks in this region .
Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the conclusion drawn above?

Pre-thinking: Hawks depend on mice. Farmers kill mice, yet they don't harm hawks. How?
 
A. The number of mice killed by farmers has increased in recent years. -  Farmers by killing more mice causing more trouble to hawks recently.

B. Farmers kill many other types of pests besides field mice without any adverse effect on hawks. -  Others pests are out of the scope.
 
C. Hawks have been found in other areas besides this region. -  The Q specifically asks about hawks belong to this very region.
 
D. Killing field mice leaves more food for the remaining mice, who have larger broods the following season. -  Killing mice has been proved to be boon in disguise for the hawks. This is what we are looking for. CORRECT.
 
E. Hawks are also endangered because of pollution and deforestation. -  Maybe there are other reasons for hawks being endangered, but that does not nullify the role of depriving them of their food (killing mice).

Binit.

saurabhsavant · Answer

HI!!!
well it essentially boils down to D and E, I chose E for obvious reasons. I am not able to get to D even after your explanation. As C is negarted by saying that we are taliking about hawks of this PARTICULAR region, why can't we negate D by sayinng that hawaks eat only this PARTICULAR mice....they just won't eat any other mouse and starve to death....

Pl elaborate.
Thanx

happy preparations!!!

LakerFan24 · Answer

Like a lot of people on here, I fell for the trap answer (E)

But when you think about it,  E is proposing an alternative . It's saying, "well, yeah, mice may die,  but   hawks are also endangered b/c of this ". Our  goal is to WEAKEN  the idea that killing mice will lead to the endangerment of hawks,  (our goal is) NOT to propose a new idea .

That is where D comes in. D says, "yeah, you can kill mice...but what will happen is the remaining mice will have more to eat, therefore the hawks will have bigger food to consume". This obviously will not threaten the hawks' existence.

Make sense?

saurabhsavant · Answer

Sorry but still nt bale to get it...these OTHER mice are still availble to be eaten by hawks, but they simply don't eat it...

LakerFan24 · Answer

Sorry, forgot to mention this key part of explanation.

It is not expressly written that farmers kill all the field mice .  It says that farmers kill the field mice, AND that leaves more food for the remaining mice .  These remaining mice could be field mice . The farmers could kill 80% of the field mice, and the remaining (20%) of them have more food now.

I think the key part here is the word, "remaining", which indicates that not all the field mice are dead -- there are some remaining.

laddaboy · Answer

Another simple way of looking at the solution is :

Argument says Killing of mice endangers survival of hawks. 
Option A Strengths, B&C are out of context

Option E says pollution and deforestation endangers hawks. This does negate our argument to some extent(we don't know to how much extent pollution is going to affect them)
But Option D weakens the argument the most.

deenesh2309 · Answer

Kudos please, if it helps

Q: Hawks in a certain region depend heavily for their diet on a particular variety of field mouse. The killing of field mice by farmers will seriously endanger the survival of hawks in this region.
Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the conclusion drawn above?

A. The number of mice killed by farmers has increased in recent years.  Strenghten so incorrect 
B. Farmers kill many other types of pests besides field mice without any adverse effect on hawks.  Not relevant. 
C. Hawks have been found in other areas besides this region.  Not relevant. 
D. Killing field mice leaves more food for the remaining mice, who have larger broods the following season.   This mentions that even though mice are killed by farmers, the mice community is still expanding and will provide enough food for HAwks. So these 2 (Killing of mice by farmers and hunting mice by Hawks) can coexist  
E. Hawks are also endangered because of pollution and deforestation.  Not relevant.

saurabhsavant · Answer

Aargghh!!!
How dumb of me...thanx a ton for clearing it out....God knows y i assumed there is "ANOTHER" type of mouse...
Thank you LakerFan24..thanx a lot:-)

tzeremakos · Answer

Hello.

In my opinion none of the aswers is good. From which guide is that question?

I agree that the hawks eat FIELD MICE.

I think that D is irrelevant just like the other ansear choices.

subrataroy0210 · Answer

Hawks are dependent on a particular variety of field mouse whereas the farmers are killing field mice in general. In order to weaken the argument, we may assume that:
1. Maybe the species of field mice that the Hawks are dependent on are not getting killed in significant number.
2. Maybe the species of field mice propagate at the same rate as they perish. And, thus, they strike a balance.

A. The number of mice killed by farmers has increased in recent years.  This option will rather strengthen the argument. Incorrect.

B. Farmers kill many other types of pests besides field mice without any adverse effect on hawks.  This option talks about hawks in general. But the argument is quite specific to a certain region. Incorrect.

C. Hawks have been found in other areas besides this region.  This option goes out of the scope of the problem. Incorrect.

D. Killing field mice leaves more food for the remaining mice, who have larger broods the following season.  This eventually counters the killing of field mice. And, thus, takes the risk of extinction of the hawks of that region away.

E. Hawks are also endangered because of pollution and deforestation.  This option provides other reasons for the possible extinction of the hawks. This option has two problems: 
(a) It talks about hawks in general and not the hawks of that region. 
(b) By providing other reasons, the option does not discount the killing of field mice by the farmers as one of the reasons for the possible extinction of the hawks in the discussion.

Thus, option D.

askul2389 · Answer

Nice explanation Lakerfan,Dinesh and Subhrata

aj1410 · Answer

Question says that Hawks eat particular kind of field mice, not all types of field mouse, as per option D, what if majorly those particular field mice are killed, as a result decreasing its population.

If anybody can help on this.

Thanks

arbazfatmi1994 · Answer

I think this is a really bad question

Amobnc · Answer

Yes, I agree. This question is not done properly..
In D), Not killing all the mice, and still leaving some mice remaining, will still reduce the hawks population therefore further endangering them. It is a stretch to assume that they will survive or not this reduction in mice population. This answer can't be correct.

In my opinion, C) would be correct bcause you are saying that with this reduction in mice population they will simply fly to another region, thus not being endangered anymore as there might be field mice over there.

Since the answers and the prompt leaves the door open to all these thoughts, the question is confusing.
A,B and E are incorrect. We are concerned with hawks being endangered by the reduction of field mice population.

Alick1 · Answer

Answer is D. "Killing field mice leaves more food for the remaining mice, who have larger broods the following season."

This means:

Fewer mice now → more food per mouse

More food per mouse → bigger reproduction

Bigger reproduction → mouse population rebounds or even increases

So although farmers kill some mice, the population recovers naturally, and hawks are not seriously endangered.

This directly attacks the conclusion.

Hawks in a certain region depend heavily for their diet

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

Hawks in a certain region depend heavily for their diet

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