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 chose answer C. The mantee population is dwindling because all the efforts / awareness s not helping. The statement which supports the argument would be, that tourists are not aware of the efforts. Hence I chose statement C. The statement supports the statement that none of the efforts are helping to save Mantee population.

However the Answer is B. This statement is adding a new information, providing an alternate way that mantee population is dwindiling. How does this support the argument?? The answer should provide an extension to the already present argument in the passage.

Can some one please explain??

OF COURSE the correct answer adds new information - that's an ABSOLUTE requirement for a correct answer to a strengthen question. If no new information is added, nothing is done to support the argument. B is correct because the argument says that NONE of the animals are safe; the best way to support that claim is to demonstrate that ALL of them are in danger somehow. B is the only answer choice that does this..

Also, you refer to "the statement that none of the efforts are helping to save Mantee [sic] population." There is NO SUCH statement in the argument. Remember to read the conclusion carefully; that is the most important part of the argument..

_________________
Tim Sanders
Manhattan GMAT Instructor

Shouldn't the right choice explain a danger that cannot be prevented by conservation efforts, criminal penalties for harming these creatures, and an overabundance of SAVE THE MANATEE! bumper stickers ?

Arguably, choice C can be prevented by criminal penalties. Hence I eliminated C and chose A, for in A the toxin is yet to be identified and hence any possible prevention is yet to be determined. Since the deaths remain a mystery and might reoccur none of the manatees are safe.

Here my thinking is parallel to below passage. Please clarify.

An unidentified virus killed 5 people. We do not know how it spreads or how it can be contained. We all are in danger.

Wow. Oh my goodness no! You CANNOT conclude that everyone is in danger just because five people died. Sure, SOME people MIGHT be in danger, and for that reason this issue warrants further study. But by no means can you conclude with certainty that EVERYONE is in danger. If you cannot see this, i'm afraid no one will be able to help you further..

_________________
Tim Sanders
Manhattan GMAT Instructor

I would agree with you gaurav.

_________________
Jamie Nelson
ManhattanGMAT Instructor

I am still not convinced how you eliminated C so easily.
The argument says,
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..

To strengthen this, it can be useful to say that most(mind it!!) of the tourists are not aware of the government's efforts and hence might not be careful towards the animal's preservation and hence might be responsible for their killings ?

Please see this thread: the-west-indian-manatee-a-distant-relative-t11646.html

_________________
Jamie Nelson
ManhattanGMAT Instructor