The Kom tree of the South Pacific islands

[sudhanshu.jha03]

Hello,

Please help me to solve this ques:

The Kom tree of the South Pacific islands sometimes produces a yellow fruit that"”while nutritious and appealing to many animals"”can only be digested by Bhana monkeys, who possess a rare stomach enzyme. As a result, all other animals have learned to avoid feeding on the fruit of the Kom tree. Between 2001 and 2005, the number of Kom trees bearing yellow fruit increased by 45%. However, since the population of Bhana monkeys was roughly the same in 2005 as in 2001, the number of monkeys consuming the yellow Kom fruit probably did not increase significantly.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A)
Prior to the increase in the population of yellow fruit-bearing Kom trees, enough yellow Kom fruit existed to feed all of the Bhana monkeys in the South Pacific.

(B)
In 2005, Bhana monkeys made up the majority of the monkey population in most areas of the South Pacific that contained a substantial number of Kom trees bearing yellow fruit.

(C)
If the population of Bhana monkeys had risen in conjunction with the increase in the number of yellow fruit-bearing Kom trees, the consumption of yellow Kom fruit by monkeys would also have increased.

(D)
In 2005, other species of monkeys became unable to digest fruits of any color from Kom trees that began to grow after 2001.

(E)
Few, if any, of the yellow fruit-bearing Kom trees that grew after 2001 grew in Bhana monkey-populated areas in which yellow fruit-bearing Kom trees did not previously grow.


My ans is A, bt actual ans is E.. I cant understand why E is correct

[pranabiitkgp]

A is definitely the right ans . Here is my explanation.

In the statement there has no link between supply and demand, it has only mentioned that those monkeys can digest but whether they actually eat those fruits was not mentioned.

A> If we take least extreme negation technique.
Firstly it links the demand supply which interns first time tells us the those monkeys actually feed on those fruit . However, if earlier the supply was not as much as the demand the consumption was not up to its potential level. But later as the supply has increased even if the demand is still same as before the consumption will increase . This will not be the case if, even in earlier time there was no scarcity of supply. Which is exactly the assumption required to draw the conclusion.

E> The physical location of the fruit's availability and the presence of those monkeys is not relevant . Still if we negate this point and accept that the current increase is actually in location which is not accessible by the monkeys - this instead is strengthening the conclusion rather than falling them apart. So this is wrong .

[tim]

we need to verify that this question comes from a valid source before the instructors can help you with it. where did this problem come from?

[sudhanshu.jha03]

Hi,
I found this question in CAT of Grockit.

[tim]

I agree with Pranab about the answer as well as the preferred method to solve this one (least extreme negation)..