Critical Reasoning Verbal Practice Questions

The passage presents a paradox: dolphins that first benefit from the beach feeding program as adults continue to lead long, healthy lives, yet their offspring have a lower life expectancy than the offspring of dolphins that do not feed at the beach. To resolve this paradox, we must identify a factor that differently affects adults (who joined the program with existing skills) versus their offspring (who are born into the program).

Option E resolves this paradox. If adult dolphins that feed at the beach spend much less time teaching their offspring how to catch fish in the wild, those offspring fail to develop essential survival skills. Without the ability to hunt effectively in the wild, these offspring would likely have a lower life expectancy. Conversely, adults who joined the program already possess hunting skills, so they continue to thrive despite participating in the feeding program. This explains both observations: adults live long lives while their offspring suffer reduced life expectancy.

Option A is incorrect because it suggests the beach area has fewer sharks than other areas, which would make the beach safer for dolphins. This fails to explain why offspring of beach-feeding dolphins have lower life expectancy.

Option B is incorrect because the mere fact that females nurse their offspring at the beach does not explain why those offspring have reduced life expectancy.

Option C is incorrect because if the fish provided are the same types dolphins catch in the wild, this would not explain any negative impact on the offspring's survival.

Option D is incorrect because the frequency of visits to the beach does not provide a mechanism by which offspring life expectancy would be reduced.

The argument states that Kosolian apple growers plan to compete with Ertland growers by selling their apples at half the local price and promoting them as a nourishing, low-cost alternative. We need to find an option that indicates this pricing strategy may not succeed. Option E states that profit margins for Ertland-grown apples are high enough that local growers, wholesalers, and retailers could easily reduce their prices. If Ertland's apple industry can match the lower prices, the Kosolian apples would lose their competitive price advantage, rendering the strategy ineffective.

The argument concludes that the new therapeutic program is not justified because its cost ($12,500 per person) exceeds the average cost of emergency treatment for injuries from falls ($11,000 per person). This conclusion relies on the assumption that the $11,000 figure represents the total cost of treating fall-related injuries. To weaken this argument, we need evidence suggesting that the actual cost of treating such injuries may be higher than $11,000.

Option C states that long-term pain medication—a frequent result of fall-related injuries—is not included in the $11,000 average cost of emergency treatment. If this additional cost is substantial, the true cost of treating injuries from falls could exceed $12,500, making the therapeutic program potentially cost-effective. By revealing an unaccounted-for expense, Option C undermines the economist's cost comparison and thus weakens the argument.