#15 - The number of deer living in North America

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Resolve the Paradox. The correct answer choice is (A).

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):

[flaneur]

Resolve question

Stimulus:
Deer population keeps increasing despite hunters killing no fewer of them, predator population increasing, and deer habitats being encroached on.

Prephrase:
hard to prephrase

Answer choice:
A: the population of all wildlife may have benefited from this policy, so this is relevant
B: this could protect deer from the threat of habitat destruction, but it is only "recent" when the stimulus indicates deer population was on the rise since a long time ago, and "attempts" do not equal success
C: this does not defeat the premise that hunters kill no fewer deer today; there are variables including enhanced firepower or hunting ability that can easily offset the dwindling number of hunters
D: this could imply that some of the predators are less than effective hunters due to their time in captivity, but it could go both ways - they could instead be stronger than wolves born in the wild, and humans could have trained them to become good hunters before releasing them into the wild
E: this is simply irrelevant

Among the many interesting answer choices, A is the one that addresses all aspects of the argument, that the number of predator and prey have risen simultaneously despite adverse conditions for deer.

Lesson:
Make sure the explanation to these types of questions address all aspects of the phenomena, i.e. not just the deer population.

[James Finch]

Hi Flaneur,

Good analysis! (A) is the only answer choice that effectively resolves the paradox, because it creates a fourth factor that could potentially outweigh the three negative ones mentioned in the stimulus. Well done!

[lunsandy]

Hi Powerscore,

During the exam I was contemplating between A and C and ended up choosing C.

My logic was that if the number of deer hunters in NA decreased since the 1960s, even though the hunters killed no fewer, that means that if there were 10 hunters in the 1950s and they each killed 5 so total there were 50 deers killed. Now in the 1960s onwards, the number of hunters decreased to 5 but they still each still killed 5 deers (because no fewer hunters today) so there are 25 deers killed. Thus, fewer deers are hunted and explains why the number of deer living in NA has increased.

Upon review, I was thinking maybe the premise "even though hunters kill no fewer deer today" actually meant the OVERALL number of deers that are hunted did not decrease (increased or stayed the same). So even if the number of deer hunters in NA has decreased (answer choice C) they were still hunting the same overall number of deers or more (it could be that they have more effective hunting tools etc.). So does that mean when we know the TOTAL of something that remained the same it does not matter the #s of deer hunters?

I didn't like A) because I thought that "most" wildlife was really weak. What if the deer population was not included in the "most"? Also, NA have been banned since the 1970s, then how can we explain the increase from 1960s- 1970s?

Thanks a lot!

[nicholaspavic]

Hi lunsandy,

You definitely figured out the percentages game that they were playing on you when you reread the stimulus so you were on the right track for eliminating (C). So well done there. And Answer choice (A) does give us some alternative causality to hang our hats on for being the right answer choice. Like a lot of wildlife/science Resolve the Paradox questions this question is going play an alternative cause game, but I agree with you that "most" weakens this answer choice slightly. This is one of those situations where you kind of have to pick the best of the bad. I think most of the other answer choices are readily eliminated because they are really not ones that address cause and effect. So that's why I would pick (A) with confidence on this one.

Thanks for the great question and I hope this helps.

[CJ12345:]

Hi, powerscore,
I understand A is the best AC available, but A still bothers me. A said the pesticides have been banned since the 1970s, but the deer increased dramatically since the 1960s. There is a time mismatch. A could not explain why there is a dramatic increase deer population since 1960

[Adam Tyson]

Check out that timeframe again, CJ12345! The deer population has increased "since the 1960s." That means that it is larger now than it was in that entire decade, not just in the year 1960. They didn't say that it increased during the 1960s, but after that decade. A change in the 1970s that helped the deer would certainly contribute to an explanation of what happened after the 1960s!