Q4

[clairenlee]

Could you explain why the answer choice C is wrong? (I was down to C and E based on the explanation given in the last paragraph, and I still can't find reasons to eliminate C.) It says in line 48 that "One possibility is that this is a defense against predators;" doesn't this validate the answer choice C?
Thanks!

[bbirdwell]

Line 48 is explaining why the Okapis don't hang out in the borders of the forest. That's not what the question is referring to. The question is asking about the Okapis living in a different forest.

[megm7267]

Still not seeing how this leads to answer (E)...Where in the passage do they mention regions that zoologists have not previously explored?

Thanks

[mcrittell]

I didn't select E because it seems too general and disconnected from the question's population. I chose A because line 50 seems to set up a model that I thought the question could follow.

[chike_eze]

Could you explain why the answer choice C is wrong? (I was down to C and E based on the explanation given in the last paragraph, and I still can't find reasons to eliminate C.) It says in line 48 that "One possibility is that this is a defense against predators;" doesn't this validate the answer choice C?
Thanks!

Toughest question in the set.

I chose (A) my first run through. But on review... the question asks what would the zoologist "most likely" conclude.

In my opinion, the correct answer explains the two questions raised in the last paragraph. 1) Why Okapis prefer to remain within forested areas... 2) Why Okapis are absent from other (more preferable) regions. Going with my line of reasoning, I believe Line 55 offers such explanation.

(B) Reverse. Line 45 "Okapis remain in forested areas... not open border between forest and savanna"

(D) "Okapis moved there because.. more preferred foliage" This is not supported by the text. Line 37: "Okapis never eat one plant to the exclusion of others; even when preferred foliage is abundant"

(A) "Okapis pushed into the forest by competition" was mentioned in 49 -52. But it was only mentioned as one of the possible explanations for question 1.

(C) "Okapis not threatened by the usual predators.." -- seems to be supported in line 48: "defense against predators". If Okapis were in the remote forest area, it could be that they felt less threatened in that region than in other regions. But again, this is given in the text as one possible explanation (same as A).

(E) "Okapis lived in the forest when the forestland was scarce" This reflects the main point of the last paragraph, line 55: "Zoologists theorize that Okapis are relicts of an era when forestland was scarce...". The Zoologists claim that the "relicts" theory provides a plausible explanation for the Okapis strange behavior (question 1 and 2). "Why do they behave this way? Well, it could be a defense mechanism, or pressure from competitors; our analysis suggests that they are "old fashioned" animals still displaying traits of generations past -- this explains their behavior".

A and C are possible conclusions, E is the most likely conclusion because it is given as the explanation for both Okapis' questionable behaviors (line 45, 52)

Thoughts??

[bbirdwell]

That's an interesting way to think about it. I see it this way:

First, on long questions, I like to get as specific as I can about what I'm actually looking for. In this case, I want to know what zoologists would think about finding some Okapis in a REMOTE FOREST.

So, I don't think the first of the two questions you raised really matters. There's nothing strange about finding an Okapi in the forest -- it's already known that they live in forest interiors.

Rather, the interesting part of the question is the word REMOTE. In order for the zoologists in question to make a "conclusion," they need to be presented with some kind of NEW evidence. Okapis in the forest is not new. Okapis in REMOTE forest is, since they are so scarce and their range is limited to "an extremely limited chain of forestland."

So the second question in the last paragraph is the one that's relevant to answering #9: "why are they absent from nearby forests?" Because they're "relics of an era..."

(A) too specific. The passage tells us that "perhaps Okapi were pushed into the forest." We don't know whether zoologists are LIKELY to conclude this about THESE new Okapis in THIS forest.

(B) unsupported.

(C) totally unsupported.

(D) contradicted (they're willing to eat other stuff even when preference is available)

(E) Bingo. This is a great paraphrase of the statement in the passage that's written in response to the question "why not other forests?"

Hope that helps!

[farhadshekib]

I was stuck btw A and E; I choose E because, (A), ultimately, refers to refers to one possibility mentioned in lines 47.

That is, the okapi were pushed into the forest by competition with other animals.

However, the same line offers another possibility: i.e. defense against predators.

So what makes us think the Zoologists will likely agree with one possibility and not the another?

(E) is supported by line 55 and it appears to be a consensus among zoologists.

[sge4]

I agree with your analysis as well, farhadshekib. It seems (A) and (C) are addressing two possibilities, both of which would have to be correct if either were chosen.

On that note, Brian, could you explain why (C) is "totally unsupported" while A doesn't have this problem? Is it the word "usual"?

Thanks.

[demetri.blaisdell]

If I can step in for the esteemed Mr. Birdwell, I see the key question to be: what do the zoologists think?

The zoologists appear in line 23 and then don't come up again until line 55 (where they are talking about answer choice E).

It's not possible to attribute either (A) or (C) to the zoologists. They are merely described as possibilities, while the theory about the okapis respecting the old borders is directly attributed to the zoologists.

Let me know if you have any questions about this.

Demetri

[porsupuesto3798]

One way of explaining it is focusing on the word remote, which means they chose not to live in non-remote places.
I think this is the best way to explain it.

Another problem is the zoologist, but I think this explanation is unconvincing. Who could show that possibility besides zoologists?

A clever way is to eliminate A and C together because they are parallel in the paragraph.

[tangdanni422]

This is my take for this question:

The stem is about newly-discovered okapis in a remote forest, so this information would lead us to the last paragraph where the passage is discussing why okapis prefer to stay within the forest and why they are absent for other nearby forest regions.

A looks good until the end of the sentence. The passage says the competition with other animals pushed okapis from the open border into the forest, but here the answer choice is saying the competition in neighboring forests pushed okapis into the forest. Detail creep, unsupported.

C is tempting but also unsupported. The passage says okapis stay in the forest as a defense against predators, but it is not saying okapis in the forest are not threatened by predators. Maybe the interior forest is just less dangerous than the open border but still threatened.

E is the best of this bunch of answer choices.

Correct me if I am wrong:)

[jenniferreisig]

I was stuck between (A) and (E).

(B) is out because okapis don't forage at the border, they tend to like staying in the interior.

(C) is out because it doesn't explain anything about why numerous okapis were found in a remove area.

(D) is out because okapis never ate "one plant to the exclusion of others; even where preferred foliage is abundant".

(A) and (E) both seem to explain why "numerous okapis" were discovered in a particular area. The answer is in the final paragraph. Answer (A) was one of two possibilities in explaining okapi BEHAVIOR but answer (E) is the ONLY explanation given for "why okapis are absent from other nearby forest regions;" which is what the stimulus is asking. So subtle.

[LilyY729]

I think the clearest way to think about this question to me is that the question stem is actually asking why this specific forest instead of why remaining in the forest. That makes the biggest difference.