Many hikers now carry cell phones so they can call for emergency assistance from remote areas. ████ ████ ███ █████ ████ ██████ ██ ████ ████████ ███████ ████ ████ ███ ████████ ████████ ████ █████ ████████ ████████ ██████ ██ █████ ███ █████ ██████ ███ ███████████ ██████ █████████ ████████ █████ █████ ████ ████ ██ ██ ██████████ ██ ███████
The stimulus gives us 4 facts.
- Many hikers carry cell phones so they can call for assistance in remote areas.
- Many hikers use cell phones to call wildlife offices when they see poachers breaking game laws.
- When hikers call wildlife offices, this allows wildlife agents to reach the scene of the poachers' crimes before the poachers leave the area.
- Poachers don't go to areas that they know hikers go.
For some Most Strongly Supported questions, it's possible to connect statements in the stimulus together to produce a reasonable inference we might look for in the answer choices. Here, however, it's difficult to identify any specific anticipation. So we should rely on process of elimination.
Which one of the following ██ ████ ████████ █████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██████
Most hikers can ██████ ████ ███████
We know many hikers carry cell phones. But that doesn't suggest "most" (meaning, over half) hikers can afford cell phones. "Many" just means a large number; it doesn't mean over 50%.
Poaching has decreased ██ ████ █████ ███ ███ ██████████
The stimulus doesn't give us enough information to draw conclusions about overall trends in poaching. We know that many hikers use cell phones to call wildlife offices when they see poachers breaking laws. But this is just a tiny factor in the sea of variables that could influence the overall incidence of poaching. Has poaching become more valuable, creating a greater incentive to poach? Have the penalties for poaching decreased? Have poachers increased their efforts in finding locations where hikers don't go? We have no idea.
Wildlife agents do ███ ███████ █████ ████ ███████
We have no evidence that wildlife agents don't carry cell phones. If anything, the stimulus might support the claim that wildlife agents do typically carry cell phones, which is why they can respond so quickly to reports of poachers.
Some hikers hike ██ █████ ████ ███ ███ █████ ██ ████████ ██ ██ ██████████ ██ ███████
We know from the last sentence that poachers don't go to places that they know to be frequented by hikers. In other words, if a poacher is in a particular area, then it's an area that they don't know to be frequented by hikers. We also know from the stimulus that hikers use their cell phones to call wildlife agents when they see poachers breaking game laws and that this allows agents to get to the crime scene before poachers leave. This establishes that sometimes, hikers and poachers are in the same area. These facts, together, show that sometimes hikers go to areas that poachers don't know to be frequented by hikers.
Here's another way to think about this inference. If poachers were aware that hikers go to these areas, then the poachers would avoid these areas and wouldn't have a chance to be seen by hikers. But we know that sometimes they are seen by hikers. So, the hikers and poachers must sometimes be in an area that the poachers didn't expect to see hikers.
Cell phones are ████████ ███ ██ ███ ████ █████████ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ███████ ████████ ████ █████████
We do have evidence that many hikers can help protect wildlife by using cell phones to call about poachers, but this doesn't tell us whether cell phones are more or less effective than other methods. So we have no basis to infer that cell phones are becoming one of the "most" effective tools for protecting wildlife from poachers.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic