Serengeti national park has had an active feeding program for the wolves for a long time. Many wolves get as much as half of their daily food requirement each day from the meat and other nourishments that the national park authorities provide. However, the life expectancy of national park wolves has become considerably less than that of wild wolves.
Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain this discrepancy?
- The meat and nourishments provided by national park authorities have not been tested by a central animal health authority.
- There has been an increase in recent years in the number of predators in and around national parks.
- The survival instincts and skills of national park wolves have decreased as a result of their dependence on human feeding.
- National park wolves have become overly friendly with humans because of their interaction with the national park authorities.
- The meat given to the wolves at the beach are the same types of meat that otters typically catch in the wild.
Summary of the argument: The national park is feeding wolves and it is observed that the life expectancy of those wolves has reduced. The answer should provide reasoning for the decrease in life expectancy.
- Just because the food has not yet been tested, it does not necessarily mean that the food does not meet the health requirements. Hence eliminated
- The information is insufficient as we don’t know whether the predators harm the wolves. Hence eliminated.
- The discrepancy here is that national park wolves have a lower life expectancy than that of wild wolves despite being fed by national park authorities. If the wolves have lost their survival skills, their life expectancy would also drop. Hence, this is the right answer.
- We don’t know whether this friendliness has caused adverse effects. Hence eliminated.
- This strengthens the paradox and doesn’t help explain it. Hence eliminated.