OFFICIAL EXPLANATION QUESTION 3


B

This question asks you to evaluate the statement and identify what conclusions you can draw using the information from the passage. Choice (A) overstates the passage. Humans were historically responsible for the quagga's extinction. There's no way to deduce what would have happened absent human contact. Choice (B) follows from the portion of the passage in which you learn that DNA analysis helped determine that the quagga is a subspecies of the zebra and not a unique species. That's enough to make the broadly worded choice (B) a viable conclusion. Choice (C) does not provide a viable answer; it assumes too much information. The passage states that researchers are trying to bring back the extinct quagga, but it doesn't say how likely these efforts are to be successful, nor does it opine on how much concern extinctions should provoke.

Yes, B is the correct answer overall. But, I still think a case can be made for A. After all, even though your explanation for not choosing A is that there is no way of knowing for certain whether the quagga would have survived, you also say that humans were responsible for the animals' extinction. I am not necessarily an animal rights spokesperson; however, there is an understandable assumption that the species' survival would have been more likely had they not been hunted by people. The paragraph should have added a sentence which, however indirect (so as not to clearly state something that would provide a clue to the examinee), would shed a bit more light on this issue.

One of the issues I take with some of these standardized tests in Reading Comprehension is that, while it's proper for students of reading to not make assumptions about subject matter conclusions, often the writer expresses ideas that are often ambiguous. Not all teachers teach their students to think deeply critically about things. Often, it's just an issue of time. And frankly, writers, themselves, often write in ways that are deliberately meant to allow for a certain liberal or "open ended" interpretation by the reader. Not all academic writers or non-fiction writers compose thoughts as if they were writing a thesis or dissertation.

Hi, quick question for the third one - If it were not for the human influence, the quagga would be a surviving species. - why can't this conclusion be drawn?
Wouldn't this part in the passage be proof enough? In the 100 years following its discovery, the quagga population diminished. It was frequently hunted for its meat and hide, and settlers who considered the animal a competitor for the grazing of their livestock also callously killed the quagga in great numbers.

Fair Enough

The passage directly states human actions led to the quagga's extinction.

A could or should be also teh answer

Yes

I'm a little confused about Q3 Statement 1 - "If it were not for the human influence, the quagga would be a surviving species.". Should we apply the formal logic in these type of questions which is also used in GMAT CRs - If A happens (human killing), then B happens (quagga extinction). But according to formal logic, if A does not happen, then we cannot know whether B would happen or not since the result of "Not A" is not given. I've seen this logic being applied as well as ignored across GRE questions. How should we go about these questions ? Is there a definite rule ? Please help

It is not a hard rule. However, in the case of the passage in my opinion I is supported



I or A should be included among the answer choices