Question

Gray wolves have been absent from a large national park for decades. Park officials wish to reestablish the wolves without jeopardizing any existing species of wildlife there. Since the park contains adequate prey for the wolves and since the wolves avoid close contact with people, reintroducing them would serve the officials' purpose without seriously jeopardizing visitors' safety.
Each of the following, if true, strengthens the argument above EXCEPT:

• A. The park is so large that wolves will not need to venture into areas frequented by people.
• B. Rabies is very rare in wolves, and there have been no verified cases of serious human injuries from nonrabid wild wolves since records have been kept.
• C. Ranchers in the region near the park have expressed concern that gray wolves, if reintroduced, would sometimes prey on their livestock.
• D. Predation by gray wolves on elk in the park is likely to improve the health and viability of the park's elk population as a whole by reducing malnutrition among the elk.
• E. Wolves do not prey on animals of any endangered species that currently inhabit the park.

Hint:

For "Strengthen/Weaken EXCEPT" questions, your task is to categorize each answer choice. Four will fall into one category (e.g., strengtheners), and one will be the odd one out (the weakener or irrelevant statement). Clearly define the argument's conclusion and premises before evaluating the options.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
This is a critical reasoning question of the "Strengthen EXCEPT" type. This means we are looking for the one answer choice that does \textit{not} strengthen the argument. The correct answer could either weaken the argument or be completely irrelevant to it. The other four choices will all provide some support for the conclusion.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
Let's first break down the argument:

Goal: Reestablish wolves.
Conditions for success: (1) Do not jeopardize existing wildlife species. (2) Do not jeopardize visitors' safety.
Premises supporting success: (1) Park has adequate prey (supports condition 1). (2) Wolves avoid people (supports condition 2).
Conclusion: Reintroduction can be done successfully (i.e., serving the purpose without jeopardizing wildlife or safety).
We need to find the option that does NOT support this conclusion. Let's evaluate the options:

(A) This strengthens the argument. It reinforces the premise that wolves will avoid people, thus supporting the conclusion that visitors' safety will not be jeopardized.
(B) This strengthens the argument. It directly addresses a major potential safety concern (rabies and attacks) and dismisses it, thus strongly supporting the conclusion that visitors' safety will not be jeopardized.
(C) This introduces a new problem or a negative consequence of the reintroduction. The concern of ranchers about their livestock is a potential downside. This does not support the argument that the plan will be successful. In fact, it might be seen as a reason \textit{against} the reintroduction, thus weakening the overall case for it. This is the correct answer because it does not strengthen the argument.
(D) This strengthens the argument. It shows a benefit to an existing species (elk), which supports the condition that the reintroduction will not jeopardize (and may even help) existing wildlife.
(E) This strengthens the argument. It directly addresses the concern about jeopardizing existing species by stating that endangered species are not on the wolves' prey list. This supports condition 1.
Step 3: Final Answer:
Options A, B, D, and E all provide additional evidence that the reintroduction will be safe for visitors and beneficial or harmless to existing park wildlife. Option (C) introduces an external problem (danger to livestock outside the park) which does not strengthen the argument about the plan's success within its stated goals.