Farmer: Several people in the past few years have claimed to have seen a mountain lion in the suburban outskirts—the...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
Farmer: Several people in the past few years have claimed to have seen a mountain lion in the suburban outskirts—the latest just last month—and, while mountain lions were thought to have been driven from this entire region about twenty years ago, there is no reason for the people who reported seeing a mountain lion to have deliberately concocted a false report. Therefore, local wildlife managers should begin to urgently address the mountain lion's presence.
Which of the following would, if true, most seriously weaken the farmer's argument?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| Several people in the past few years have claimed to have seen a mountain lion in the suburban outskirts—the latest just last month |
|
| while mountain lions were thought to have been driven from this entire region about twenty years ago |
|
| there is no reason for the people who reported seeing a mountain lion to have deliberately concocted a false report |
|
| Therefore, local wildlife managers should begin to urgently address the mountain lion's presence |
|
Argument Flow:
The farmer starts with evidence (multiple recent sightings), acknowledges a potential objection (mountain lions were supposedly gone), addresses credibility concerns (no reason to lie), and then concludes with a call for action.
Main Conclusion:
Local wildlife managers should urgently address the mountain lion's presence in the area.
Logical Structure:
The argument assumes that if people are reporting mountain lion sightings and have no reason to lie, then mountain lions must actually be present and require management action. The logic flows: credible sightings + no motive to lie = mountain lions are really there = urgent action needed.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Weaken - We need to find information that would reduce our belief in the farmer's conclusion that wildlife managers should urgently address the mountain lion's presence
Precision of Claims
The farmer's argument relies on the quality of eyewitness reports (people saw mountain lions), the credibility assessment (no reason to lie), and the logical leap from sightings to needing urgent management action
Strategy
To weaken this argument, we need to find scenarios that either: 1) Provide alternative explanations for the sightings that don't involve actual mountain lions, 2) Show that even if sightings are real, urgent action isn't needed, or 3) Undermine the reliability of the sightings without questioning that people reported them or that they had no reason to lie
This choice tells us that adult cattle and hogs aren't typically attacked by mountain lions. However, this doesn't weaken the farmer's argument about whether mountain lions are present or whether action is needed. Even if mountain lions don't attack large livestock, they could still pose other concerns (attacking smaller animals, pets, or potentially humans) that would justify urgent management action. This doesn't address the core issue of whether the sightings are reliable evidence of mountain lion presence.
This choice states that mountain lions look different from other wild animals in the area. If anything, this would strengthen rather than weaken the farmer's argument. If mountain lions are visually distinct from other local wildlife, it would make misidentification less likely, which would increase the credibility of the eyewitness reports. This supports rather than undermines the conclusion that mountain lions are actually present.
This choice reveals that every person who reported seeing a mountain lion was alone during the sighting, with no other witnesses present. This significantly weakens the argument by undermining the reliability of the evidence without questioning the witnesses' honesty. Solo eyewitness accounts are inherently less credible than corroborated sightings, especially for brief wildlife encounters where misidentification is common. This creates reasonable doubt about the mountain lions' actual presence, weakening the case for urgent management action.
This choice mentions no regional reports of mountain lions migrating to the area in the past year. However, this is relatively weak evidence against the farmer's argument. The absence of migration reports doesn't necessarily mean mountain lions aren't present - they could have been there longer than a year, or migration might not have been officially documented. Additionally, this doesn't directly challenge the eyewitness testimony that forms the core of the farmer's evidence.
This choice states that more than half of people in the region have never seen a mountain lion before. This actually doesn't weaken the argument meaningfully. We wouldn't expect most people to see mountain lions even if they are present, since these animals are typically elusive and avoid human contact. The fact that some people have reported sightings while others haven't is perfectly consistent with mountain lions being present in the area.