Please explain the reasoning behind the OA?
+++
The West Indian manatee, a distant relative of the elephant, returned to the sea some 50 million years ago. These thousand-pound herbivores inhabit the warm coastal waters where Americans like to play. Despite conservation efforts, criminal penalties for harming these creatures, and an overabundance of SAVE THE MANATEE! bumper stickers, none of these animals can be considered safe.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the argument above?

a) Last year, several manatees were mysteriously killed by an unidentified toxin.
b) All manatees swim at depths that make them vulnerable to the blades of motorboat engines.
c) Most tourists are unaware of the ongoing efforts to save the manatee.
d) The population of manatees in the wild has dwindled to fewer than 2,500 animals.
e) Although dozens of manatee deaths are documented each year, many more deaths go unreported.
----
I was choosing between A and B. I assumed since conservation is in place, some of the animals will be excluded from the contact with motor boats, so B is not that relevant.
In contrary, if there is a killing toxin and nothing is done (according to the text) to prevent its action, it will eventually kill the animals.

OA is B!

Is the OA A?

Hi,

Is OA E?

The big difference between B and A is that in A *some* of the animals are clearly in trouble, but in B *all* of the animals are potentially in danger. Therefore B is the only one that supports the contention that none of the animals are safe. Does this help?

_________________
Tim Sanders
Manhattan GMAT Instructor

Thanks a lot tim for your explanation. It does indeed help.

So in GMAT Several = Some always? - Takeaway?

that's a very narrow takeaway, but if you want to bother memorizing something i'd say the more accurate statement is that "several" conveys something less than "all". this should be self-evident though..

_________________
Tim Sanders
Manhattan GMAT Instructor