Question from Manh. collection.

In the past year, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of people killed by alligators in Florida. During this same time, there has been an increase in the development of new houses, golf courses, and shopping areas in former wilderness areas within the state. Therefore, the increase in fatal alligator attacks must have been caused by the increase in the number of humans living in the alligator’s habitat.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls into question the explanation above?
1 Two years ago, a government initiative to reduce the alligator population size by destroying alligator eggs ended.
2 An increase in fatal alligator attacks tends to make people more cautious around lakes, ponds, swamps and canals.
3 The number of people killed by snake bites, spider bites and scorpion stings in Florida has held steady for many years.
4 Many of the new state residents have moved to newly constructed areas near water that is suitable for habitation by alligators.
5 The undeveloped areas of Florida have decreased in area by 5% in the past year.

OE

A conclusion may be weakened when another explanation at least as compelling as the original is offered. The number of people killed by alligators may have increased in the past year for some reason other than the increase in the number of humans living in the alligator’s habitat.

(A) CORRECT. This statement properly identifies an alternative rationale (there are more alligators now) and undermines the given explanation.
(C) This point about differing types of harmful wildlife is irrelevant to the argument about alligator fatalities.

I ask your instructors to check the validity of this question and explonation.
Here is my consern.
It couldn't be A, because if Two years ago, a government initiative to reduce the alligator population size by destroying alligator eggs ended, there whouldn't be a dramatic increase in the number of people killed by alligators in the past year (in one year). The reason is that 1 year alligator is quite small and cute even attempt to harm or attack (not kill) a person (even child, who are walking alone in the dangerous regions near the water). The only diet components of young alligators (till 2 y old) are crayfish, snails, insects and aquatic spiders.
The answer (from my opinion) that makes sense is C. The number of people killed by snake bites, spider bites and scorpion stings in Florida has held steady for many years. Which means that people are not more often visitors of potential dangerous and wilderness areas within the state.

Please comment.

If you say option C is correct, then you are making an assumption that these reptiles are found in wilderness areas only, whereas the question statement doesn't talk about these.

Hi,

"Two years ago, a government initiative to reduce the alligator population size by destroying alligator eggs ended"
This statement is nothing more than just a claim without anymore specifics. What if the govt. initiative was unsuccessful? Had the stmt. said "2 yrs ago a govt. initiative, which was a sucess,....." then this would certainly call into question the conclusion above.

Please shed some light on this.

hi everyone.
It's pitty that my question is more that 1 month hasn't found answer.
RON!!!! NEED YOU HELP! however, I think this question is not representative, I have solved almost all OG questions and haven't yet met anything like this.

umeshkathuria, I am not sure that realised your point.
Anyway, I think that government program took place in the Zoo. I think that the matter here is the mastering by humankind of new (wild) territories.

"Therefore, the increase in fatal alligator attacks must have been caused by the increase in the number of humans living in the alligator’s habitat."

How can C be correct - just because 'The number of people killed by snake bites, spider bites and scorpion stings in Florida has held steady for many years' how can I conclude that 'the increase in fatal alligator attacks must have been caused by the increase in the number of humans living in the alligator’s habitat'. I totally fail to see the link between the two.

A is correct because it gives you an alternative explanation why the attacks have increased - because the alligator population has increased.

You are using your extra knowledge to infer that 2 yr old crocodiles are harmless (though I have my serious doubts about that), but I don't have that knowledge so to me this is the perfect answer. For all you know these could be some special type of mutant crocs that are capable of killing at 2 itself.

My point is don't use your extra knowledge and the answer is clearly A.

@ priyassaxena:

There's a simple rule that applies to both CR as well as SC - you have to select the best option and not the correct option, so if you can't find a better one go with what looks best amongst worst.

Even if as you say the option had said that the govt. program was a success I could always counter that this was 2 yrs back and its possible that last year there was some alligator disease that wiped out half the alligator population. Than how does this option strengthen?

The point is CR is always relative to what other options you have and there is no 1 ultimate answer but just a better-than-the-rest one.

Hope this helps.

Cheers!

Okay. Seriously. This is perhaps the best example I have ever seen to support the proposition that you should not attempt to bring outside knowledge into a verbal question. If you ever think about bringing outside knowledge into a question, see if you can find another approach, because if you are the world's leading expert on the feeding habits of adolescent alligators it's a pretty sure bet the question writers haven't given nearly as much thought to the issue as you have. The correct answer helps explain why the attacks may have increased, namely because the population of alligators has probably increased. That's what you want to focus on here..

_________________
Tim Sanders
Manhattan GMAT Instructor

IMO A is correct OA.

I selected B first as if people are more cautious to lend in the aligator's habitat then there would be more reason to doubt, but on a cloase look the assumption boils down to A.

A says that the govt effort was to destroy the eggs and not the living aligators. So, new born may be in lesser now in past 1 yr. May be they are taking revenge to kill their eggs :)

Just to be clear, yogeshthehackologist was joking. That's nothing like the actual explanation for A.

By the way, B, the other answer yogeshthehackologist considered, would NOT offer an alternative explanation for the increase in attacks, though it might suggest that at least some of that increase would be temporary. Presumably that's why he abandoned it for the correct answer.