Critical Reasoning

The West Indian manatee, a distant relative of the elephant, returned to the sea some 50 million years ago. These thousand-pound herbivores inhabit the warm coastal waters where Americans like to play. Despite conservation efforts, criminal penalties for harming these creatures, and an overabundance of SAVE THE MANATEE! bumper stickers, none of these animals can be considered safe.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the argument above?

A) Last year, several manatees were mysteriously killed by an unidentified toxin.

B)All manatees swim at depths that make them vulnerable to the blades of motorboat engines.

C) Most tourists are unaware of the ongoing efforts to save the manatee.


D) The population of manatees in the wild has dwindled to fewer than 2,500 animals.

E) Although dozens of manatee deaths are documented each year, many more deaths go unreported.


I chose answer C. The mantee population is dwindling because all the efforts / awareness s not helping. The statement which supports the argument would be, that tourists are not aware of the efforts. Hence I chose statement C. The statement supports the statement that none of the efforts are helping to save Mantee population.

However the Answer is B. This statement is adding a new information, providing an alternate way that mantee population is dwindiling. How does this support the argument?? The answer should provide an extension to the already present argument in the passage.

Can some one please explain??

(C) just shows that tourists are unaware of the efforts, but doesn't mean they are harming them. Nothing wrong sipping a nice cold beer on the beach without harming the manatee is there?

(B) is correct since it offers an explanation which says that a lot of Manatees are dying accidentally due to motorboat blades, and none of the measures mentioned in the passage can defend against those accidents.

kmittal82 wrote:(C) just shows that tourists are unaware of the efforts, but doesn't mean they are harming them. Nothing wrong sipping a nice cold beer on the beach without harming the manatee is there?

(B) is correct since it offers an explanation which says that a lot of Manatees are dying accidentally due to motorboat blades, and none of the measures mentioned in the passage can defend against those accidents.

If I go by the logic as stated in C that tourists are not harming them, and also in B which says that nothing can be done to prevent then from dying by boat, then A also stands good, which says that they are dying because of unidentified toxins!!

kmittal82 wrote:(C) just shows that tourists are unaware of the efforts, but doesn't mean they are harming them. Nothing wrong sipping a nice cold beer on the beach without harming the manatee is there?

(B) is correct since it offers an explanation which says that a lot of Manatees are dying accidentally due to motorboat blades, and none of the measures mentioned in the passage can defend against those accidents.

For me the answer is - (B) -

You can not go with A.....it is actually out of scope. Read the passage properly. It is saying 'coastal waters where Americans like to play. Despite conservation efforts, criminal penalties for harming these creatures, and an overabundance of SAVE THE MANATEE! bumper stickers, none of these animals can be considered safe.' In that case you have correlate this information with the answer.
Also in A there are 2 issues. It says last year, no information prior to that. Secondly, it says several, no information how many were present and how many are died.
B says 'all', which makes us to select this option. Because this is ongoing activity and not related to last year, year before last or anything. There might also be possibility that number of manatee dying because of blade is more. So this is the best answer.

HTH!!!

dinesh19aug wrote:

kmittal82 wrote:(C) just shows that tourists are unaware of the efforts, but doesn't mean they are harming them. Nothing wrong sipping a nice cold beer on the beach without harming the manatee is there?

(B) is correct since it offers an explanation which says that a lot of Manatees are dying accidentally due to motorboat blades, and none of the measures mentioned in the passage can defend against those accidents.

If I go by the logic as stated in C that tourists are not harming them, and also in B which says that nothing can be done to prevent then from dying by boat, then A also stands good, which says that they are dying because of unidentified toxins!!

dinesh19aug wrote:

kmittal82 wrote:(C) just shows that tourists are unaware of the efforts, but doesn't mean they are harming them. Nothing wrong sipping a nice cold beer on the beach without harming the manatee is there?

(B) is correct since it offers an explanation which says that a lot of Manatees are dying accidentally due to motorboat blades, and none of the measures mentioned in the passage can defend against those accidents.

If I go by the logic as stated in C that tourists are not harming them, and also in B which says that nothing can be done to prevent then from dying by boat, then A also stands good, which says that they are dying because of unidentified toxins!!

The logic in A is indeed similar to that in B, however the key aspect which is incorrect in A is that it only talks about "Last year", whereas the passage is talking in general terms. B addresses this by saying "All manatees" are at risk, taking the timing out of the issue.