Q10 - Human settlement of previously

[vaikall]

Can someone explain to me why the answer is (E)?
In the last sentence of the prompt, (In fact, during the five years since 1985 its population has risen far more rapidly in towns than in rural areas), are they talking about the population of the birds or the people?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

In the last sentence of the prompt, (In fact, during the five years since 1985 its population has risen far more rapidly in towns than in rural areas), are they talking about the population of the birds or the people?

They're definitely talking about the birds!

Here they're asking us to explain why human settlement has an opposite effect on the population of the Mississippi kite than it does on other wildlife. And the pattern we're trying to explain is that the kite does better in towns than in rural areas. Answer choice (E) helps to explain this pattern by offering a benefit to the kites that live in towns compared to those living in rural areas. Keep in mind that anything positive for kites living in towns or anything negative for kites living in rural areas would help explain the pattern.

(A) represents a negative associated with living in towns for kites. That's the opposite of what we want.
(B) doesn't offer a benefit to kites living in towns compared to kites living in rural areas.
(C) applies to kites living both in towns and in rural areas and so cannot explain a difference.
(D) is irrelevant. Adapting to towns doesn't offer a benefit to living in towns compared to more rural areas.

Hope that helps... and let me know if you another question on this one!

[mitrakhanom1]

I still don't understand how answer choice E is correct. I feel it was irrelevant since other animals could also be protected by the tree. Making it out of scope since this is about how this special bird the Mississippi kite is able to rise in its population. i picked answer choice B. I know its not the best choice but its what i picked. I thought if the town is smaller there is less people around interacting with the birds then these birds are less likely to become endangered. I was able to eliminate the other answer choices for these reasons. answer choice A is out of scope because of setting off loud firecrackers. answer choice C is wrong because if this treaty has been effectively enforced than the past 5 years since 1985 would not have seen a rapid increase in the population of Mississippi kites. answer choice d is out of scope its bringing in pigeons and racoons when we are talking about the Mississippi kite. any comments would be much appreciated. thanks

[ohthatpatrick]

I thought a lot of what you said actually made me like (E) more than (B).

You said:
I still don't understand how answer choice E is correct. I feel it was irrelevant since other animals could also be protected by the tree. Making it out of scope since this is about how this special bird the Mississippi kite is able to rise in its population. i picked answer choice B.

You were complaining about (E) being applicable to other animals and wishing instead for something specifically about this special bird the Mississippi kite.

But that's one of the biggest reasons WHY we like (E) more than (B).

(E) is specifically about the kites. Yes, what it talks about could apply to other animals as well, but (E) specifically talks about the Mississippi kites' nests and eggs.

(B) Doesn't say ANYTHING specifically about the kites.

So for the reason you stated, we should like (E) much more.

Your concern about (E), that it would apply to other animals too, doesn't make sense to me.

Our job in this question is to explain something.

Let's say we were trying to explain why lots of mice were dying in a certain town.

Could it explain that if we said, "there's a poisonous gas leak"?

Sure!

But wouldn't a poisonous gas leak also affect other animals?

Sure! Who cares? We're only judging an answer by whether it explains why something is happening.

And this brings us to the BIGGEST problem between (B) and (E), a problem that really has more to do with how you initially read, process, and organize the information in the stimulus.

The question stem wants you to explain why the kites don't follow the usual pattern (of human settlement endangering wildlife).

In other words .. explain the last sentence:
Why are kites doing better in TOWNS than in RURAL areas?

To do that we need a distinction between towns and rural areas.

Does (B) give you a distinction?

Not really. Don't rural areas also have low density of human population and large numbers of wild birds and animals?

(B) is essentially saying "towns on the prairies aren't that bad."

That's not good enough ... we have to explain how towns could be better than rural areas.

Hope this helps.

[mitrakhanom1]

Thanks Patrick! That really helped! Now I get it.

[contropositive]

I read the explanations above, but I am a bit confused still. On Manhattan LR edition 4 there are 3 buckets for "explain the result" question types. I put E into bucket 3 (irrelevant) and B into bucket 2 (explains the unexpected). Here is what I thought was the expected and unexpected:

Expected: Kites would be endangered by the human population (especially in towns where more people are living)
Unexpected: Kites populations has actually flourished in areas where humans have settled

A) Bucket 1 (further evidence for the expected)
B) At first I picked it because I thought if birds are outnumbering humans in towns then perhaps that's why its population has increased in towns. BUT then during review I decided this wouldn't do much. even if kites outnumber the human population, it doesn't explain to us why they haven't been endangered by humans and actually flourished where humans have settled.
C) Bucket 3. we don't know that shooting the birds is why wildlife (including birds) were endangered to begin with, and it doesn't clearly explain why it has flourished in areas where humans settle
D) Bucket 3. raccoons and pigeons don't matter
E) Bucket 3. protection from hail and windstorm doesn't seem to explain why kites have flourished in areas where humans settle. wouldn't they still be endangered even though their protected from windstorm and hail?

I couldn't pick an answer...

[ohthatpatrick]

I think you're getting frustrated looking for a perfect answer, rather than the best one.

The first sentence tells us that human settlement tends to endanger wildlife, not always.

So it's perfectly compatible with that sentence that the Mississippi kite just ISN'T endangered by human settlement.

Perhaps ground-dwelling animals are really the ones who get screwed up by human settlement, while birds can safely coexist with humans.

As you pointed out with (B), there's not really a REASON there why the birds wouldn't be screwed up by human settlement, unless we think there's a common sense link between "low density of humans / large number of wildlife" and "not endangered by human settlement".

I'll admit, there is some link. But in order for us to believe that the KITE isn't harmed by this low human density, then we also would be thinking that all these other large numbers of wild birds and animals would ALSO not be harmed.

And that would pretty much go against the first sentence. They don't ALL need to be harmed by humans, but that needs to be the usual pattern.

(B) doesn't give be anything UNUSUAL, SPECIAL, or SPECIFIC about kites that distinguishes them from the usual.

Another thing to keep in mind is that facts described actually make it seem like the kite is not only UNHARMED by human arrival, it's actually BETTER OFF!

If the kite were just unharmed, then it would do equally well in rural areas and in town areas.

But since the kite is doing BETTER in town areas, we really want to find an explanation for how human settlement is HELPING the kite population FLOURISH, not just sustain the status quo.

(E) gives a reason that human settlement helps the kites. It aligns better with the facts. The denser the human development, the better kites are doing.

(B) is sort of the opposite of this. Hope this helps.