Alligator question

[tones]

In one of the practice tests, I got the following CR question.

In the past year, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of people killed by alligators in Florida. During this same time, there has been an increase in the development of new houses, golf courses, and shopping areas in former wilderness areas within the state. Therefore, the increase in fatal alligator attacks must have been caused by the increase in the number of humans living in the alligator’s habitat.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls into question the explanation above?

1) Two years ago, a government initiative to reduce the alligator population size by destroying alligator eggs ended.
2) An increase in fatal alligator attacks tends to make people more cautious around lakes, ponds, swamps and canals.
3) The number of people killed by snake bites, spider bites and scorpion stings in Florida has held steady for many years.
4)Many of the new state residents have moved to newly constructed areas near water that is suitable for habitation by alligators.
5) The undeveloped areas of Florida have decreased in area by 5% in the past year.

The answer provided is 1) because "This statement properly identifies an alternative rationale (there are more alligators now) and undermines the given explanation."

I take issue with this answer because common sense (and not necessarily outside knowledge) would tell you that a two or one year old alligator could not kill a person. It is highly unlikely that juveniles of any species could be capable of killing even an infant. Thus, more one year old alligators running around would not sufficiently contribute to lethal attacks. Maybe 10 years later, or some more reasonable margin of time, but as it stands this answer is bogus.

I'm not going to propose one of the other answers here, I just think you Manhattan should make the correct answer actually make sense.

[bobby boucher]

Everybody run for your life! It's a two year old alligator:

http://www.hinduonnet.com/gallery/0241/024104.htm

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Glob ... 5_0905.jpg


If the initiative did in fact end two years ago, and alligators had been killing people over the past year, many of the newly roaming alligators might be even younger than 2 years.

[JoshT]

Its questions like these that make me really annoyed because it could have significant impact on my final score. You rarely see this kind of common sense mutilation on OG questions.

[RonPurewal]

first of all:
go gators!

remember, the freshman and sophomore Florida players are just as lethal to the competition as the older players. ;)

--

one:

I take issue with this answer because common sense (and not necessarily outside knowledge) would tell you that a two or one year old alligator could not kill a person. It is highly unlikely that juveniles of any species could be capable of killing even an infant. Thus, more one year old alligators running around would not sufficiently contribute to lethal attacks.

you win and you lose.

you win on the fact that 2-year-old alligators are still really small. we'll give you that. the wikipedia article says that they reach maturity at about 8-13 years of age, so we'll probably just change it to "10 years" and then everyone will have a happy face again.

but this is DEFINITELY "outside knowledge". it would be ludicrous to expect test takers to know the ages at which different animals reach maturity, let alone to allow a question to hinge on that knowledge.

you lose on your apparent generalization that one-year-olds of any species are effectively harmless.
dude! ever seen a one-year-old pit bull?

--

here's the most important statement you've made, though:

I'm not going to propose one of the other answers here

...and that's it.

on the REAL TEST, the correct answer will sometimes be correct for reasons that strike you as marginal. it happens.
but if the other answer choices are clearly irrelevant or counterproductive, then pick the marginal one!
did you get this problem wrong?
if so, which answer choice did you pick, and why?

[StaceyKoprince]

Agree with Ron on both counts. Every time I take the test, there's a verbal question on which I want to start arguing with GMAC. :) (And, in fact, there are several in the OG in this same category, including one that's just flat out wrong on the topic of the way patents work.)

[danielnorton25]

a one year old black widow is deadly.

a baby rattlesnake can inflict more damage than an adult snake.

http://www.mountainairevet.com/rattlesnake.html