Company spokeperson: It is true that specimens of five rare

Question

This is a question I got wrong and where I don't totally agree with the OA. I'll post the answer after some discussion

Company spokeperson: It is true that specimens of five rare or endangered animals have died within two months of the opening of our new Animal World theme park. However, the more than one thousand other animals at the park are in healthy condition, and park management has taken every reasonable precaution to ensure their continued survival and good health.

Which of the following, if true, woudl most strengthen the claim above?
A) The five animals that died succumbed to infectious diseases spread through unclean drinking water
B) Most zoos and other facilities that house rare animals experience several fatalities within two months of opening
C) Over $2 million was spent by the management of Animal World on health facilities for the animals at the park
D) The rare or endangered animals living at Animal World were obtained through legally sanctioned conservation programs
E) One of the world's most famous zoo directors was hired by Animal World as a consultant on animal health

Bhai · Answer

I think it is B, since it the only one showing the historical nature of the new zoos, which are prone to some kind of disaster. All the others 
(except A) are strengthing but what is the limit. 2 million may not be enough, why just one consultant? Here we cannot question the zoo's capability but can point to some extraneous circumstances which can prove our point.

SigEpUCI · Answer

Thats a tough on.. between E and C. I would say.

The claim is that "every reasonable precaution has been taken to ensure continued health".

I'm going to choose E. C says they spent 2 million, but that number alone gives us not indication relative to a normal zoo. E.g. most zoos might spend 10 mil on health facitilities, in this case, animal world would be deficient.

looking forward to seeing the answer. 

E for me.

ywilfred · Answer

(A) is a show of negligence, not what we want.
(B) does not show that the park has taken precaution. In fact, it might be all zoos are negligent !
(C) 2 million dollars spent doesn't mean precaution. It is a waste of money if no one with the professional skills is present to help with the health of the animals
(D) is out of scope
(E) is pretty goo. It shows that a professional was hired to take care of animal health

Karthik · Answer

Why do we need to assume that the rare animals died of ill-health...
there could be lot of other causes -
bad maintenance, food habits, starvation...blah blah...so how can we say that hiring an professional on animal health would be strenghthening the argument...

In B, there is a generalisation....any thoughts on this Paul

lastochka · Answer

between E and C, my vote goes to E

NEWKID · Answer

My answer is B. The reason being that there is a different reason for the death of the rare animals.It is not because of facilities that the animals died. The reason could be that the animals found it difficult to adapt to the new enviornment and thus struggled to survive. Only those who survived the first two months live long. Something like the survivial of the fittest.!

Paul · Answer

OA is B. I picked E on this one
I see your reasoning for refuting E Bhai. However, E only says that one of the most famous consultants has been hired, it does not say anything about whether the zoo also hired other consultants. In that respect, E most properly strengthens the claim that  proper precautions  were taken at the zoo.

B on the other hand could be refuted because even though many fatalities happen at other zoos, what if those other zoos' size are much larger? Furthermore, I don't like taking others' example to justify our own wrongdoings/weaknesses. Furthermore, B does nothing to justify the conclusion that  every reasonable precaution to ensure their continued survival and good health

Bhai · Answer

I may have got influenzed by your opening statement in which you said that you got it wrong. I am sure I would have chosen E but I was thinking out of the box. Even then I was convinced that consultants and the 2 million qualify equally to be an answer and so changed my mind.

dj · Answer

B, my choice.

B may not be the strong contender, but the best among given choices.

B suggests, it is possible that some uncaged rare species go through a different (possibly strenuous) caged experience, which they can't bear and ultimately die. And that (the death) is not rare :wink:

E --> can't be it. doesn't prove whether the director was prudent enuf to take necessary action.

hardworker_indian · Answer

It all depends on what we think the company's claim is:
If we think that the company claims that the death is not a a special case, then B is the answer.
If we think that the company claims that they have taken this seriously and have done enuf measures to overcome this in future, then E is the answer.

I personally think E is the answer, since the "claim" (and hence conclusion) is that zoo has taken new measures.
"Endagered psecied died" is just given as an a aupport argument and not as a claim.

damit · Answer

here is why i chose B

we need to show that the reason the animals died was outside their control and i think b does that by saying look its normal for some animals to die despite efforts and then gives evidence

E i definately think is wrong. So what if they hired the worlds most famous consultant? they have to follow wht he says and not be negligent. you can hire the best consultant in making a building and still be negligent

c - who is to say $2M is adequate. while $2m is a lot for many of us here maybe they should have spent $10 m. who knows... 

only b shows such activity is normal

Company spokeperson: It is true that specimens of five rare

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