Q2 - For years, a rare variety

[topcow500]

I answered (C) to this question. I see why (A) could be correct, but nothing has yet convinced me that (A) MOST helps to explain the increased rate of population loss.

The only reason that I can see (C) being wrong is the presence of the word "somewhat," which (A) lacks. However, (A) doesn't tell us the extent to which poachers effect the population of the rare camel in the area. To assume that they're making the are more than "somewhat" of a danger seems to go beyond the information present. Who is to say that the poachers are killing more camels than the unexploded bombs are? Also, just because the camels are rare doesn't mean that they're high-value targets for poachers. They could be rare for other reasons. Answer (C) seems to give a much more direct reason for camels dying due to something that is definitely still hazardous in the area where the old range was ("much of [the camels'] habitat).

This is worrying me. I'm taking the test in October, and PT 67 seemed to be chock full of LR questions with grossly misleading "shell-game" answers (ex. 13-16 of this same section). On top of that, they put the hardest of the 4 RC passages and AR games LAST. The curve is rather unforgiving given the difficulty of this PT.

[christine.defenbaugh]

Explain a result questions demand that we separate the expected result from the unexpected reality, and zero in on an answer choice that makes the unexpected reality just a bit less bizarre.

First, we're given the fact that weapons testing has endangered a type of camel. At some point the weapons testing stops.
What we would expect: camel population might recover, or at least stop falling.
What happens: camel population starts falling even faster than during the weapons testing.
Weird!

As the question stem indicates, our answer choice should ideally explain not only why the camels are still declining, but why they are declining even faster now. (A) is the only one that provides a possible explanation for the increase. With no more weapons testing to keep them away, poachers might be now more damaging to the camel population than the weapons testing ever was!

Note that we do not know for sure that the poachers are hunting the camels at such a high rate (or even at all). But it's an entirely reasonable possibility that could explain the increased rate of loss.


Those That Leave Us Wondering
(B) This compares the damage weapons testing itself had in various years. It does nothing to explain the increased loss post testing.

(C) While the existence of unexploded bombs may give a plausible explanation for why the camel population did not actually rebound post testing, it cannot possibly explain why the rate of loss increased. The worst plausible damage to the camel population these unexploded bombs could do is identical to the weapons testing period damage - i.e., the rate of loss would have remained the same when testing stopped.

(D) The disease outbreaks could certainly help explain an increase in loss, if they had occurred post testing. But they occurred during the weapons testing period, making the unexpected result in the stimulus even weirder than it was!

(E) Like (B), this compares the damage weapons testing itself had in various years. It does nothing to explain the increased loss post testing.



It is particularly important on an Explain a Result question to be strict about your task: here the question pointed us explicitly to explain the increased rate of loss, not just the continued rate of loss.

As for 'hide the shell' answer types, I'm not sure I follow you completely. Could you elaborate?

Please let me know if this explanation helped clear up your question for this problem!

[kyuya]

It always feels so pointless posting after Christine, but I'll give this a shot anyway for practice and give my own perspective.

Basically, we are looking for an answer choice that would explain why after a threat (weapons testing range) to camels was eliminated, they began dying even MORE.

Something else must be causing them to be dying more now, so what is it? Lets see if we can find it.

(A) I'd keep this for now and move on in real time, but it looks good. It suggests an alternative explanation - perhaps poachers are ruthless and kill much more of the camel population than weapons testing ever could.

(B) This doesn't explain why they died at a higher rate after the weapons testing stopped, it just tells us about how deaths varied.

(C) I think it is reasonable to assume here that although yes, the unexploded bombs here pose a threat, would they really account for the rare camel dying at a HIGHER rate? I doubt it. Essentially, it is unexploded bombs vs bombs that were presumably exploding quite a bit, so it makes more sense to think that they bombs that exploding more often did more damage, therefore making this answer choice bad.

I think the appeal of this answer choice is that you know it probably lead to SOME (but little) camel deaths, and by impulse one may choose this answer. Its important to stick the the discrepancy and ask yourself if this AC would really make sense for exacerbating camel deaths when we know that there were probably more bombs when the habitat was a weapons range.

(D) "During the time the testing range was in operation" this does not address the time after the range was closed. Furthermore, it not only does not explain the discrepancy, but also makes it WORSE - they were dying from weapons testing AND a disease. This leaves us wondering, "wow, something really bad must have happened to make the camel deaths rise more, because now we know they were dealing with an illness and having weapons tested on them"

(E) Again, like many other answer choices, this does not address the time after the weapons testing was done. It's actually pretty irrelevant.

Okay so..

We know now that (A) is the right answer. It provides us with a reason, although we do need to make a small assumption that poachers will kill more of the camels than did the weapons testing. it is however, the best answer choice so it would be wise to choose it and move on.

[tommywallach]

Christine shames us all.

-t

[JameelYusuf06]

This questions confused the crap out of me too, and I picked (C) because it does partially answer the stimulus. My tutor who is a Yale Law student gave me the same reasoning; poachers coming in would explain why camels are dying faster.Though, as an Aspie (Asperger's) I had to question that logic because it still didn't convince me. What I came up with is that (C) is a better answer because it explains how the closing of the testing range ties into the increased rate of Camel Deaths. If unexploded bombs went off then the closing of the testing range is somewhat frivolous. Though if you imagine you have a fence enclosing a bunch of camels with crazy poachers like in the Wild Thornberry's waiting outside and the testing range closes along with it's weapons tests, then surely camels would die with the influx of crazy poacher people!

[josh.randall52]

^^

Maybe, but that's still somewhat of an assumption. AC A is just the best one that explains a new reason for the accelerated death rate.

The real problem is that these unexploded bombs are from the time period including when the weapons range was still open. This is not a new occurrence, this has been going on when they were testing their weapons. Maybe if B said something like, "after the range was closed, the officials of the range planted thousands of bombs throughout their habitat."

[WesleyC316]

(A) is correct? Seriously? So the weapon testing was actually helping the camels because poachers were kept from them?

I'll attach some statistics to see what's going on here.
Before testing: camels declined 10% a year.
During testing: camels declined 20% a year.
After testing: camels declined 30% a year.

If (A) were true, why wouldn't the decline rate went back to 10% as it was before the tests?

Also, if the camels were already declining by 30% even before the tests, how could it be that "camel was endangered because much of its habitat was used as a weapons testing range". They should be saved instead. What's going on with this early question?

[lai.heidar]

Yep,

I'm having a problem with this question too.

I thought to making the assumption that camels who were walking around a testing range that was somewhat dangerous due to unexploded bombs would have died if they encountered them was a safe assumption to make.

A was tempting but I felt like it was more random than the unexploded bombs given the content in the stimulus.

[ohthatpatrick]

We need a difference between
BEFORE (when the habitat was an active testing range)
and
AFTER (when the habitat was no longer an active testing range)

that would make that habitat MORE dangerous for camels.

(C) is saying it would "still be somewhat dangerous".
Would it be MORE dangerous after than before?

Of course not. First of all, before ... you had unexploded bombs AND exploding bombs.
after .. you just have the unexploded bombs.

That makes BEFORE seem more dangerous than AFTER. (we need the opposite)

"still somewhat dangerous" is weak wording, and it really implies LESS dangerous than before.

If I initially say, "Don't eat that soup yet, it'll burn your mouth"
and later say, "Blow on that soup ... it's still somewhat hot",
we know that it was MORE dangerous earlier than later. The phrasing "still somewhat X" implies that "it used to be MORE X, but there are still traces of X there"

(A) is certainly a wacky answer, but it's the only available answer with legs.
We don't have a better way (here) of explaining why AFTER was MORE dangerous, so that means (A) does the most to help us explain the surprise.

Hope this helps.