Wolves generally avoid human settlements. For this reason, domestic sheep, though essentially easy prey for wolves, are not usually attacked...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Paradox

MEDIUM

...

Notes

Post a Query

Wolves generally avoid human settlements. For this reason, domestic sheep, though essentially easy prey for wolves, are not usually attacked by them. In Hylantia prior to 1910, farmers nevertheless lost considerable numbers of sheep to wolves each year. Attributing this to the large number for wolves, in 1910 the government began offering rewards to hunters for killing wolves. From 1910 to 1915, large numbers of wolves were killed. Yet wolf attacks on sheep increased significantly.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain the increase in wolf attacks on sheep?

Populations of deer and other wild animals that wolves typically prey on increased significantly in numbers from 1910 to 1915.

Prior to 1910, there were no legal restrictions in Hylantia on the hunting of wolves.

After 1910 hunters shot and wounded a substantial number of wolves, thereby greatly diminishing these wolves' ability to prey on wild animals.

Domestic sheep are significantly less able than most wild animals to defend themselves against wolf attacks.

The systematic hunting of wolves encouraged by the program drove many wolves in Hylantia to migrate to remote mountain areas uninhabited by humans.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
Wolves generally avoid human settlements.	What it says: Wolves stay away from areas where humans live What it does: Sets up the basic behavior pattern of wolves What it is: Author's claim about wolf behavior
For this reason, domestic sheep, though essentially easy prey for wolves, are not usually attacked by them.	What it says: Even though sheep are easy targets, wolves don't normally attack them because they avoid human areas What it does: Connects wolf behavior to protection of domestic animals What it is: Author's logical inference from the first statement
In Hylantia prior to 1910, farmers nevertheless lost considerable numbers of sheep to wolves each year.	What it says: Despite the general pattern, Hylantia farmers were losing lots of sheep to wolves before 1910 What it does: Introduces a contradiction to the expected pattern What it is: Historical fact that challenges the previous reasoning Visualization: Normal expectation: Few sheep losses (10-20 per year) Hylantia reality: Considerable losses (200+ sheep per year)
Attributing this to the large number for wolves, in 1910 the government began offering rewards to hunters for killing wolves.	What it says: The government thought too many wolves caused the problem, so they started paying hunters to kill wolves What it does: Shows the government's solution based on their interpretation of the sheep loss problem What it is: Government policy response Visualization: Government's thinking: More wolves = More sheep deaths Solution: Reduce wolves through bounty program
From 1910 to 1915, large numbers of wolves were killed.	What it says: The bounty program worked - hunters killed many wolves over 5 years What it does: Shows the government's plan was implemented successfully What it is: Historical outcome of the policy Visualization: Wolf population: 1910 (thousands) → 1915 (hundreds) Expected result: Fewer wolf attacks
Yet wolf attacks on sheep increased significantly.	What it says: Even though wolf numbers dropped, attacks on sheep went up a lot What it does: Presents a surprising contradiction to the expected outcome What it is: Paradoxical result that needs explanation Visualization: Wolf numbers: Down 70-80% Sheep attacks: Up 40-50% This creates the puzzle we need to solve

Argument Flow:

The argument sets up a puzzle by first establishing normal wolf behavior (avoiding humans), then showing an exception in Hylantia, followed by a government solution that backfired. We start with the logical expectation that fewer wolves should mean fewer attacks, but the opposite happened.

Main Conclusion:

There is no explicit conclusion in this passage - it's presenting a paradox that needs explanation. The surprising result is that killing wolves led to more sheep attacks, not fewer.

Logical Structure:

This is a paradox-style argument where the premises build up to an unexpected outcome that contradicts logical expectations. The structure moves from general rule → exception → attempted solution → surprising failure, creating a puzzle that requires explanation.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Paradox - We need to explain why wolf attacks on sheep increased significantly even though large numbers of wolves were killed from 1910-1915. This creates a contradiction that needs resolution.

Precision of Claims

The key claims involve quantities (large numbers of wolves killed vs. significant increase in attacks), behavioral patterns (wolves avoiding human settlements), and temporal relationships (what happened before 1910 vs. after the hunting program).

Strategy

For paradox questions, we need to find an explanation that resolves the apparent contradiction without questioning the given facts. We know: 1) Wolves normally avoid humans/sheep, 2) Hylantia had many sheep losses before 1910, 3) Many wolves were killed 1910-1915, 4) Attacks increased despite fewer wolves. We need scenarios that explain why fewer wolves could lead to more attacks.

Answer Choices Explained

Populations of deer and other wild animals that wolves typically prey on increased significantly in numbers from 1910 to 1915.

This choice suggests that deer and other wild prey increased significantly from 1910-1915. However, this would actually make the paradox worse, not better. If wolves had more abundant wild prey available, they would have even less reason to venture near human settlements to attack sheep. More wild animals would keep wolves away from domestic sheep, not drive them toward sheep farms.

Prior to 1910, there were no legal restrictions in Hylantia on the hunting of wolves.

The fact that there were no legal restrictions on wolf hunting before 1910 doesn't help explain why attacks increased after 1910 when systematic hunting began. This choice tells us about the legal situation before the bounty program but doesn't address why fewer wolves would cause more attacks. It's irrelevant to resolving our paradox.

After 1910 hunters shot and wounded a substantial number of wolves, thereby greatly diminishing these wolves' ability to prey on wild animals.

This perfectly explains our paradox. Wounded wolves would lose their ability to hunt agile wild animals effectively, forcing them to seek easier prey. Domestic sheep, being much easier targets than deer or other wild animals, would become attractive options for these injured wolves. Even though fewer wolves existed overall, the wounded wolves would be more likely to attack sheep than healthy wolves were before 1910, explaining the increase in attacks.

Domestic sheep are significantly less able than most wild animals to defend themselves against wolf attacks.

While this explains why sheep are vulnerable to wolf attacks in general, it doesn't help us understand why attacks increased after 1910. Sheep were just as defenseless before 1910, so this can't explain the change in attack patterns. This choice addresses wolf-sheep dynamics but not the temporal puzzle we need to solve.

The systematic hunting of wolves encouraged by the program drove many wolves in Hylantia to migrate to remote mountain areas uninhabited by humans.

If wolves migrated to remote mountain areas away from humans, this would predict fewer sheep attacks, not more. Wolves moving farther from human settlements would have less contact with domestic sheep, making our paradox even more confusing rather than resolving it.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...