Grizzly bears are very dangerous. When people come close to a grizzly

Question

Grizzly bears are very dangerous. When people come close to a grizzly bear, there is a much greater chance that they will be attacked by it than if they were to come close to a black bear. In British Columbia, however, over the past eighteen years twice as many people were attacked by black bears than by grizzly bears.

Which of the following, if true, would most contribute to an explanation of the facts above?

Which of the following, if true, would most contribute to an explanation of the facts above?

A. Bears of both species will attack to protect their cubs from danger.

B. Recently, more people than ever before have visited the British Columbia area.

C. There are roughly ten times more black bears than there are grizzly bears in British Columbia.

D. Black bears have poorer eyesight than grizzly bears do.

E. There are more grizzly bears today than there were eighteen years ago, whereas the number of black bears has remained the same.

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Grizzly bears are very dangerous. When people come close to a grizzly bear, there is a much greater chance that they will be attacked by it than if they were to come close to a black bear. In British Columbia, however, over the past eighteen years twice as many people were attacked by black bears than by grizzly bears.

Which of the following, if true, would most contribute to an explanation of the facts above?

Which of the following, if true, would most contribute to an explanation of the facts above?

A. Bears of both species will attack to protect their cubs from danger.

Incorrect.

This is a Paradox question, so it is made up of premises only; you need to find a new premise which best resolves the apparent discrepancy between the existing premises:

Premise A: grizzly bears are dangerous
 +
Premise B: when a person comes in close range, a grizzly bear is more likely to attack than a black bear
 ✖
Premise C: in the last 18 years, black bear attacks outnumber grizzly bear attacks 2:1 in British Columbia

Resolving Premise: ?

This answer choice neither resolves nor emphasizes the paradox. It says something that applies to both black bears and grizzly bears, so the paradox remains the same: if both bear species attack under the same circumstances, and grizzly bears attack under additional circumstances, being more aggressive, how come there are still more black bear attacks than there are grizzly bear attacks?

B. Recently, more people than ever before have visited the British Columbia area.

Incorrect.

The number of people is irrelevant to the number of attacks per species. This statement leads us to believe that there would be a larger number of attacks in general, but not a change in the ratio of black bear attacks to grizzly bear attacks.

C. There are roughly ten times more black bears than there are grizzly bears in British Columbia.

This answer choice resolves the paradox of why, despite the fact that they are less aggressive, black bears attack people more often than grizzly bear attacks in British Columbia - there are simply more black bears there.

D. Black bears have poorer eyesight than grizzly bears do.

Incorrect.

This is a Paradox question, so it is made up of premises only; you need to find a new premise which best resolves the apparent discrepancy between the existing premises:

Premise A: grizzly bears are dangerous
 +
Premise B: when a person comes in close range, a grizzly bear is more likely to attack than a black bear
 ✖
Premise C: in the last 18 years, black bear attacks outnumber grizzly bear attacks 2:1 in British Columbia

Resolving Premise: ?

This answer choice is irrelevant as we do not know whether and how a bear's eyesight affects it chances to attack people. This does not help us explain why black bear attacks are more common than grizzly bear attacks, despite grizzly bears being more aggressive.

E. There are more grizzly bears today than there were eighteen years ago, whereas the number of black bears has remained the same.

Incorrect.

This answer choice only tells us about the trends in each group of bears separately. However, in order to resolve the paradox we need to know what is the ratio between the groups - are there more black bears than grizzly bears or vice versa?

Sumi1010 · Answer

This is a  Resolve the Paradox  problem. In such problems, there is no conclusion. It mentions about an usual or expected trend and a deviation from the trend. We need to explain the reason for the deviation from normalcy.

Grizzly bears are more likely to attack than are Black bears. But,in British Columbia, over the past eighteen years twice as many people were attacked by  black bears  than by grizzly bears.What could be the reason?

As there is no conclusion, it's better to avoid the pre-thinking and look at the choice that can explain the paradox.

A. Bears of  both  species will attack to protect their cubs from danger.
 So what? This does not explain why would twice as many people were attacked by black bears than by grizzly bears.  
B. Recently, more people than ever before have visited the British Columbia area.
 This could be the reason why more people got attacked by both grizzly and black bears. Does not explain the discrepancy again.  
C. There are roughly ten times more black bears than there are grizzly bears in British Columbia.
 If the proportion  black:grizzly  bears is almost  10:1  . It's more likely that the more people will be attacked by black bears. Explains the reason for the discrepancy.  
D. Black bears have poorer eyesight than grizzly bears do.
 If so, the black bears should attack the fewer people. This does not explain the reason for twice as many people were attacked by black bears than by grizzly bears.  
E. There are  more grizzly bears  today than there were eighteen years ago, whereas the number of black bears has remained the same.
 How much more? Are they surpassing the number of black bears? we don't know.

IMO  C

ntngocanh19 · Answer

The discrepancy here is today GB is more likely to attack human than BB. But 18 years ago, BB was more likely to attack human than GB.
I'm confused between C and E but finally choose E
because C just explain about the first part of the discrepancy while E explain why discrepancy happen=> resolve it
Go for E
Please let me know if anything in my logic go wrong. Thanks

Posted from my mobile device

sumitkrocks · Answer

Grizzly bears are very dangerous. When people come close to a grizzly bear, there is a much greater chance that they will be attacked by it than if they were to come close to a black bear.

In British Columbia, however, over the past eighteen years twice as many people were attacked by black bears than by grizzly bears.

A. Bears of both species will attack to protect their cubs from danger. 
Irrelevant

B. Recently, more people than ever before have visited the British Columbia area. 
But we do not know in what proportions they are attacked by Black and Grizzly bears

C. There are roughly ten times more black bears than there are grizzly bears in British Columbia. 
OOh thats the reason i.e even if fewer chances are there that black bears will attach, because of higher volume overall attacks by black bears are more

D. Black bears have poorer eyesight than grizzly bears do. 
Irrelevant

E. There are more grizzly bears today than there were eighteen years ago, whereas the number of black bears has remained the same. 
Irrelevant

C is the answer

mohammadfaraaz123 · Answer

Summary:   There is greater chance to be attacked by a Grizzly bear than a black bear and yet in British Columbia, in past 18 years twice the number of people have been attacked by black bears than grizzly bears.

We need to explain the paradox.

A. Bears of both species will attack to protect their cubs from danger.

Does not explain the numerical difference in the number of attacks.  Eliminate

B. Recently, more people than ever before have visited the British Columbia area.

That does not mean they encountered either kind of bear.  Eliminate

C. There are roughly ten times more black bears than there are grizzly bears in British Columbia.

Okay so, population Black bears is way higher than that of grizzly bear, making encounter with black bear more probable and hence higher probability of getting attacked by a black bear than grizzly bear.  Looks good

D. Black bears have poorer eyesight than grizzly bears do.

That could explain why you need to get closer to them to get attacked but does not explain the higher number of attacks.  Eliminate

E. There are more grizzly bears today than there were eighteen years ago, whereas the number of black bears has remained the same.

Higher population of grizzly bears than black bears goes against solving the paradox.  Eliminate

Answer choice C is the correct answer, imo.

carouselambra · Answer

IMO C

Grizzly bears are very dangerous. When people come close to a grizzly bear, there is a much greater chance that they will be attacked by it than if they were to come close to a black bear. In British Columbia, however, over the past eighteen years twice as many people were attacked by black bears than by grizzly bears.

Which of the following, if true, would most contribute to an explanation of the facts above?

Which of the following, if true, would most contribute to an explanation of the facts above?

A. Bears of both species will  attack to protect their cubs from danger. 
Doesn't help us establish anything about who will attack more.

B. Recently, more people than ever before have visited the British Columbia area.
Irrelevant

C. There are roughly ten times more black bears than there are grizzly bears in British Columbia.
 Correct , if the population of black bears is more, the attacks will be more.

D. Black bears have  poorer eyesight  than grizzly bears do.
How is this related to the attacks?

E. There are more grizzly bears today than there were eighteen years ago, whereas the number of black bears has remained the same.
Might be true, but this does not help us establish a relationship between the attacks and population.
Example : What if the same population of black bears attacked humans more?

TarunKumar1234 · Answer

Grizzly bears are very dangerous. When people come close to a grizzly bear, there is a much greater chance that they will be attacked by it than if they were to come close to a black bear.

In British Columbia, however, over the past eighteen years twice as many people were attacked by black bears than by grizzly bears.

A. Bears of both species will attack to protect their cubs from danger.
Irrelevant

B. Recently, more people than ever before have visited the British Columbia area.
But we do not know in what proportions they are attacked by Black and Grizzly bears

C. There are roughly ten times more black bears than there are grizzly bears in British Columbia.
OOh thats the reason i.e even if fewer chances are there that black bears will attach, because of higher volume overall attacks by black bears are more

D. Black bears have poorer eyesight than grizzly bears do.
Irrelevant

E. There are more grizzly bears today than there were eighteen years ago, whereas the number of black bears has remained the same.
Irrelevant

C is the answer

mlakshmi84 · Answer

Conclusion: 
In British Columbia over last 18 years people attacked by black bears = 2x
 people attacked by grizzly bears = x 
 
Premise: generally grizzly bears attack more people.

We need to find out a reason for the abnormal behavior of Black bear....

A. Bears of both species will attack to protect their cubs from danger. -  Wrong,  because, it speaks about both Bears.

B. Recently, more people than ever before have visited the British Columbia area. -  Wrong,  It doesn't speak about Bears

C. There are roughly ten times more black bears than there are grizzly bears in British Columbia. -  Correct , Because It speaks about Bears and reason for abnormal behavior of black bear
 (i.e) No.of Black bears are more and hence more people are prone to be attacked by black bear
 
D. Black bears have poorer eyesight than grizzly bears do. -  Wrong  , because it doesn't provide any reason for abnormal behavior of Black bear

E. There are more grizzly bears today than there were eighteen years ago, whereas the number of black bears has remained the same. -  Wrong , because it doesn't provide any reason for abnormal behaviour of Black bear

Shikhar22 · Answer

Your logic is wrong because, E says that there’s an increase in black bears and number of grizzly bears is constant. That could mean black bears have increased from , let’s say, 2 to 5. Whereas grizzly bear has remained at a 1000. So the argument falls apart.

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

Let’s look at the paradox in the stimulus

Grizzly bears are very dangerous. 
When people come close to a grizzly bear, there is a much greater chance that they will be attacked by it than if they were to come close to a black bear.

HOWEVER

In British Columbia, over the past eighteen years twice as many people were attacked by black bears than by grizzly bears.

If the chance of getting attacked by a grizzly bear is more than the chance of getting attacked by a black bear, why is the case different in British Colombia. We need to look for an option that resolves the paradox present in the argument.

A. Bears of both species will attack to protect their cubs from danger.
Doesn’t help resolve the paradox. We need to find why is the case different in British Colombia.  Eliminate .

B. Recently, more people than ever before have visited the British Columbia area.

Recently, more people than ever before have visited British Columbia. But why was it that many people were attacked by black bears than by grizzly bears? Doesn’t help resolve the paradox.  Eliminate

C. There are roughly ten times more black bears than there are grizzly bears in British Columbia.

Option C helps resolve the paradox present in the argument.
There are roughly ten times more black bears than there are grizzly bears in British Columbia. This explains why more people were attacked by black bears than by grizzly bears.  Correct .

D. Black bears have poorer eyesight than grizzly bears do.
Despite having poor eyesight, black bears attacked more people than Grizzly bears did. If anything, Option D only adds to the paradox present in the argument.  Eliminate .

E. There are more grizzly bears today than there were eighteen years ago, whereas the number of black bears has remained the same.

If there are more grizzly bears today than there were eighteen years ago, why was it that more people were attacked by black bears than by grizzly bears? Doesn’t resolve the paradox.  Eliminate .

Vishnupriya
GMAT Verbal SME

Grizzly bears are very dangerous. When people come close to a grizzly

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

Grizzly bears are very dangerous. When people come close to a grizzly

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