CAT 2024 Slot 2 VARC Question & Solution

Reading ComprehensionMedium

Passage

The passage below is accompanied by four questions. Based on the passage, choose the best answer for each question.

There are three other common drivers for carnivore-human attacks, some of which are more preventable than others. Natural aggression-based conflicts - such as those involving females protecting their young or animals protecting a food source - can often be avoided as long as people stay away from those animals and their food.

Carnivores that recognise humans as a means to get food, are a different story. As they become more reliant on human food they might find at campsites or in rubbish bins, they become less avoidant of humans. Losing that instinctive fear response puts them into more situations where they could get into an altercation with a human, which often results in that bear being put down by humans. “A fed bear is a dead bear,” says Servheen, referring to a common saying among biologists and conservationists. Predatory or predation-related attacks are quite rare, only accounting for 17% of attacks in North America since 1955. They occur when a carnivore views a human as prey and hunts it like it would any other animal it uses for food. (. . .)

Then there are animal attacks provoked by people taking pictures with them or feeding them in natural settings such as national parks which often end with animals being euthanised out of precaution. “Eventually, that animal becomes habituated to people, and [then] bad things happen to the animal. And the folks who initially wanted to make that connection don’t necessarily realise that,” says Christine Wilkinson, a postdoctoral researcher at UC Berkeley, California, who’s been studying coyote-human conflicts.

After conducting countless postmortems on all types of carnivore-human attacks spanning 75 years, Penteriani’s team believes 50% could have been avoided if humans reacted differently. A 2017 study co-authored by Penteriani found that engaging in risky behaviour around large carnivores increases the likelihood of an attack.

Two of the most common risky behaviours are parents leaving their children to play outside unattended and walking an unleashed dog, according to the study. Wilkinson says 66% of coyote attacks involve a dog. “[People] end up in a situation where their dog is being chased, or their dog chases a coyote, or maybe they’re walking their dog near a den that’s marked, and the coyote wants to escort them away,” says Wilkinson.

Experts believe climate change also plays a part in the escalation of human-carnivore conflicts, but the correlation still needs to be ironed out. “As finite resources become scarcer, carnivores and people are coming into more frequent contact, which means that more conflict could occur,” says Jen Miller, international programme specialist for the US Fish & Wildlife Service. For example, she says, there was an uptick in lion attacks in western India during a drought when lions and people were relying on the same water sources.

The likelihood of human-carnivore conflicts appears to be higher in areas of low-income countries dominated by vast rural landscapes and farmland, according to Penteriani’s research. “There are a lot of working landscapes in the Global South that are really heterogeneous, that are interspersed with carnivore habitats, forests and savannahs, which creates a lot more opportunity for these encounters, just statistically,” says Wilkinson.

Question 1

According to the passage, what is a significant factor that contributes to the habituation of carnivores to human presence?

The natural aggression exhibited by carnivores, exacerbated by human interference, particularly when they are safeguarding their offspring or food sources.

The increased scarcity of resources due to climate change, forcing carnivores to venture outside their natural habitats in search of sustenance.

The predatory perception of humans as potential prey within the carnivores’ food chain.

The reduction in carnivores’ instinctive fear response, resulting from their reliance upon human-provided food.

Solution:

Option D is the correct answer.

The passage states that: “As they become more reliant on human food they might find at campsites or in rubbish bins, they become less avoidant of humans. Losing that instinctive fear response puts them into more situations where they could get into an altercation with a human, which often results in that bear being put down by humans."

This means that the factor contributing most to carnivores' habituation to human presence is the reduction in instinctive fear response and reliance on human food sources, which is evident in option D.

Option A: The passage does not mention their natural aggression. It focuses more on losing fear due to food reliance on human food.

Option B: The passage mentions climate change as a possible reason for increased conflict, but it doesn't suggest it directly contributes to loss of fear or habituation.

Option C: The passage does not mention about the predatory perception of humans as potential prey, hence eliminated.

Question 2

Given the insights provided by Penteriani’s research and Wilkinson’s statement, which of the following conclusions can be drawn about the relationship between landscape heterogeneity and human-carnivore conflicts?

Low-income countries with vast, contiguous wilderness areas are less prone to human-carnivore conflicts because these areas lack the human presence necessary for such encounters.

Landscape heterogeneity, characterized by a mix of farmland and natural habitats, inherently reduces the chances of human-carnivore conflicts by providing more refuge for wildlife away from human activity.

Homogeneous landscapes with uniform agricultural practices are more likely to experience high rates of human-carnivore conflicts due to the predictability of resources.

The diversity and interspersion of working landscapes with carnivore habitats in rural areas increase the statistical probability of encounters between humans and carnivores.

Solution:

Option D is the correct answer. The passage mentions that landscape heterogeneity (a mix of farmland, forests, and carnivore habitats ) in rural areas of low-income countries creates more opportunities for human-carnivore encounters.

As Penteriani’s research shows, such landscapes increase the statistical probability of these conflicts because the areas are interspersed with human and carnivore habitats. This aligns with option D.

Option A: This is inconsistent with the passage. The passage states, "The likelihood of human-carnivore conflicts appears to be higher in areas of low-income countries dominated by vast rural landscapes and farmland". Therefore, it is not less prone, rather more prone as per the passage.

Option B: The passage does not claim that landscape heterogeneity inherently decreases the chances of human-carnivore conflict. Instead, it states that diversity increases the likelihood of encounters rather than reducing it.

Option C: The passage does not state that homogeneous landscapes cause high rates of conflict due to predictability. Instead, it suggests that landscape heterogeneity increases encounters.

Question 3

Which of the following statements, if false, would be inconsistent with the concerns raised in the passage regarding the drivers of carnivore-human conflicts?

Climate change has had negligible effects on the frequency of carnivore-human interactions in affected regions.

Predatory attacks by carnivores are a common occurrence and have steadily increased over the past few decades.

Carnivores lose their instinctive fear of humans, when consistently exposed to human food sources

Human efforts to avoid risky behaviours around large carnivores have proven effective in reducing conflict incidents.

Solution:

This is an official CAT 2024 Question, and the marked answer is according to the official answer key. We disagree with this answer.

Let us look at falsifying these statements:

Option A: Climate change has had negligible effects on the frequency of carnivore-human interactions in affected regions.

False version 1: Climate change has had no effect on the frequency of carnivore-human interactions in affected regions. - Inconsistent with the passage

False version 2: Climate change has had a lot of effect on the frequency of carnivore-human interactions in affected regions. - Consistent

As one of the versions contradicts the passage, we can say that the statement if false is inconsistent.

Option B:

Predatory attacks by carnivores are a common occurrence and have steadily increased over the past few decades.
False Version: Predatory attacks by carnivores are a rare occurrence and have steadily increased over the past few decades.

This is consistent with the passage.

Option C: Carnivores lose their instinctive fear of humans, when consistently exposed to human food sources.
False Version: Carnivores do not lose their instinctive fear of humans, when consistently exposed to human food sources. -- irrelevant to the passage as the author speaks on reliance on human food and not exposure to human food "sources".

Option D: Human efforts to avoid risky behaviours around large carnivores have proven effective in reducing conflict incidents.
False version: Human efforts to avoid risky behaviours around large carnivores have not proven effective in reducing conflict incidents. -- beyond the scope of the passage.

Question 4

According to the passage, which of the following scenarios would MOST likely exacerbate the frequency of carnivore-human conflicts?

Implementing 'food waste' management strategies to prevent wild animals being attracted to human food sources.

Addressing the impact of climate change on the availability of resources for wildlife.

Attempting to photograph wild animals from within secured viewing areas in national parks and protected zones.

Unleashing dogs by pet owners in areas with known high concentrations of large carnivores.

Solution:

Option D is the correct answer.

The passage mentions that 66% of coyote attacks involve a dog, which can either provoke a carnivore or escalate a dangerous situation when the dog chases a carnivore or vice versa. In areas with large carnivores, unleashing dogs can increase the likelihood of encounters and conflicts. Therefore, option D is the most likely scenario to exacerbate carnivore-human conflicts.

Why the other options are less likely to exacerbate the conflicts:

Option A: Preventing wild animals from being attracted to human food sources would actually reduce carnivore-human conflicts by keeping animals from becoming habituated to humans. This would prevent potential issues, not exacerbate them.

Option B: The passage suggests that climate change could increase the frequency of human-carnivore encounters due to scarcity of resources. Therefore, addressing climate change would likely help prevent the issue rather than exacerbate it.

Option C: According to the passage, photographing wild animals in secured viewing areas is not a major driver of carnivore-human conflicts. Conflicts typically arise from behaviours that encourage animals to approach humans or interact in risky ways, not from observation in protected zones. Therefore, this is unlikely to exacerbate conflicts.