­Trout populations are rising in United States rivers, which

Looks like the source is Gmat prep focus mock. It was posted by my friend ashutosh_73

­Can anyone of you provide with the screenshot of the question? Thank you!

sayan640 KarishmaB Bunuel Question is from Prep test no. 4
­

­
These days I am finding myself disagreeing with more and more official questions!    
Don't know if it is the Focus effect for which I need to re-calibrate, but I wouldn't have thought it to be an official question. 
I would consider option (A) to be a trap. Uses the same words, seems to fit into the context, but isn't very logical.

If I break down the last sentence, I get:

Premise:
since habitat restoration will enable indigenous trout populations to rebound
and since .... (looking for another premise)

Conclusion: Conservation should thus focus on restoring habitats,

First premise makes sense. Restore habitat since it will enable indigenous trout populations to rebound ('right kind of fish' focus).
Restore habitat since ... (A): the degradation of trout habitats caused the initial trout population declines

I am thinking why does this have anything to do with what we have to do now, for future, for right kind of fish focus.
'Why the decline happened in the past' is irrelevant when we are already given that restoring habitat will enable indigenous to rebound in the previous premise. 
When we are using comma + and + since, I am looking for another premise. 

Hence, I don't really have an explanation here. 


 

 

Hi KarishmaB Can we say the same for the below another question question from PT 4?
It was really frustrating during the Mock. Confidence takes a hit!!

This is a strengthener fill-in-the-blank question. We need to give reason for supporting the conclusion.

Option E makes sense to me, it gives a reason why habitat restoration should be a focus.

The argument states that restoring habitats will "REBOUND" (start INCREASING) the indigenous fish population. So choice A is incorrect as it talks about decline. If there were no decline in habitat then it's possible that the fish population would've stayed the same and would not INCREASE. So this choice doesn't even support the rebound part of the argument.

Opt E states: that since the target trout fishes are indigenous, the habitat must have SUPPORTED their population INCREASE until their overabundance caused their habitat to degrade, leading to a decrease in their population. => So if we restore the habitat again we can have the same conditions that increased the population in the past. Not a great option but convincing enough.

Opt B states: It is wrong because it assumes "if fished above current levels" - we don't know whether this condition will be met or not. Eliminate B.­

A. 

Focus is ensuring diversity/right kind of trout.

What  completes the statement best? Answer must address the diversity of trout --> A.

­

­I believe the option A is correct based on the following rationale

please correct me if I am wrong

Indigenous trout populations will rebound because of habitat restoration.

This would be true if the initial trout population was affected by habitat degradation.
The trouts would have failed to thrive in a degrading environment and hence population declined
Then in order to increase trout population people would have added non-native trout population into the river. For some reason, the trouts population is now restored but with non native trouts dominating the native trouts in number

I would have easily picked option A if it had specifically mentioned indigenous trout population rather than initial trout population

Another strong contender among the options would be E IMO, if not for the paradoxical element in it

 

­This is a little hard question and even I went for choosing B over A, as it explained how the other probllem of Non-Native Trout Population will be handled. But my thinking here is wrong since we need a option which will most logically complete the last sentence, which inherently tries to explain how to solve the problem of DECLINING INDIGENOUS TROUT POPULATION mentioned in the passage.

We need an option which most logically helps us understand why we should focus on "Restoring Habitats" (AS MENTIONED IN THE LAST SENTENCE) and option A explains that.

The following is my thinking:
1. Non-native trout species increased, which lead to native trout population decrease. 
2. The last line indicates that there is a need for restoration of habitats, thus implying that something has happened to destroy the earlier existing habitat. The ONLY change which is mentioned in the passage that might have led to destruction of habitat is the infestation of the Non-Native Trouts.
3.We can infer from the above, that the reason for decline in NATIVE TROUT was due to change in habitat, which has occured due to excessive Non-Native Trouts.

The option which most logically explains the above is A) which states that the initial degradation [OF THE NATIVE TROUT  AFTER INFESTATION OF THE NON NATIVE TROUTS, AND NOT THE ONE IMPLIED IN SENTENCE 1] was caused due to degradation of the earlier habitats.

 ­

MartyMurray any thoughts?

Posted from my mobile device