For years, a rare variety of camel was endangered because much of its

Question

For years, a rare variety of camel was endangered because much of its habitat was used as a weapons testing range. After the testing range closed, however, the population of these camels began falling even more quickly.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain the increased rate of population loss?

(A) The weapons test had kept wildlife poachers out of the testing range.

(B) Weapons testing in the range did more harm to the camels in the first years of the testing than in later years.

(C) Because of unexploded bombs, the land within the testing range was still somewhat dangerous after the range closed down.

(D) The camels had to overcome two different outbreaks of disease during the time the testing range was in operation.

(E) The weapons tests were most harmful to the camels in years when food was scarce.

yashikaaggarwal · Answer

For years, a rare variety of camel was endangered because much of its habitat was used as a weapons testing range. After the testing range closed, however, the population of these camels began falling even more quickly.

Habitat (Down) because of testing --------> Habitat going further down after the testing stopped

The option testifying the loss in habitat of camel is:

(A) The weapons test had kept wildlife poachers out of the testing range. (Can be, maybe that's why the poachers started hunting after the testing stopped, decreasing the habitat of camel, Keep this)

(B) Weapons testing in the range did more harm to the camels in the first years of the testing than in later years.(Its stated nowhere that the testing on habitat created any significant reaction or danger, assuming unstated point is wrong)(Incorrect)

(C) Because of unexploded bombs, the land within the testing range was still somewhat dangerous after the range closed down. (Could be, but the reaction and danger of using habitat as weapon is not stated)(Out of Scope)

(D) The camels had to overcome two different outbreaks of disease during the time the testing range was in operation.(No disease breakthrough has been discussed in passage)(Incorrect)

(E) The weapons tests were most harmful to the camels in years when food was scarce. (Food Scarcity is not that stated issue)(Incorrect)

Answer is A

aviddd · Answer

I debated between A and C, but finally picked A only because C uses "somewhat dangerous".

If there are unexploded bombs, this would pose a bigger threat to the animals since the number of animals killed or the seriousness of injury can be much more than what poachers could do.

But, since C sounded not so confident with "somewhat dangerous", I picked A.

Would love to hear an expert weigh in on this. Why not C?

Hovkial · Answer

There were likely unexploded bombs before the range closed down. So that would not be a large reason for the increased rates of deaths.

The "somewhat dangerous" phrase also indicates that the unexploded bombs would not have contributed substantially.

mSKR · Answer

(A) so it means wildlife poachers started killing the camels again after the weapon testing range was closed. 
(B) It doesn’t explain why the population began to fall more quickly.
(C) The land is dangerous but it doesn’t show any relation with camel population. It maybe possible that camels don't visit here at all. 
(D) There should not be more decline after weapon testing range was closed.
(E) It doesn’t mention what happens after the weapons tests were closed.

nikitathegreat · Answer

Can someone help me explain between the two answer choices - Choice A and Choice C?

GMATNinja  @VeritasKarishma

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

nikitathegreat

Hovkial above has the idea. Notice that C tells us that the range was  still  somewhat dangerous. That means that some of the danger remained, but there is no indication that the range became  more  dangerous than before. Presumably, unexploded bombs + active weapons testing is more dangerous than just some remaining unexploded bombs. In any case, even if the danger was 100% the same as before, that wouldn't explain why the camel population began declining more quickly. A, on the other hand, shows that the previous threat (weapons testing) was holding another threat (poachers) at bay. When an old threat is replaced by a new one, it's entirely possible that the new one is more dangerous, so this is a plausible explanation for the decline.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

For years, a rare variety of camel was endangered because much of its

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

For years, a rare variety of camel was endangered because much of its

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