Skip to main contentSkip to solution

There are three other common drivers for carnivore-human attacks, some of which are more preventable than others. Natural aggression-based conflicts โ€“ 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. โ€œA 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. โ€œEventually, 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,โ€ 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. โ€œAs 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 are 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. โ€œThere 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.

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

Solution

โœ… Correct Option: 4

From passage: "Experts believe climate change also plays a part in the escalation of human-carnivore conflicts... As finite resources become scarcer, carnivores and people are coming into more frequent contact, which means that more conflict could occur."

The key thought process -> Find what the passage clearly supports -> Then see which statement directly contradicts that support -> That's our answer.

The passage clearly says climate change does increase conflicts between humans and carnivores. It gives examples like lions and humans competing for water during droughts.


๐ŸŸ  Option 1 -> partial-truth -> If false, it means predatory attacks are not common and not increasing. The passage says they're "quite rare" at 17%, so this being false actually agrees with the passage.

๐ŸŸ  Option 2 -> context-shift -> If false, it means human efforts haven't worked well. The passage says 50% of attacks could be avoided, but doesn't clearly say current efforts are working great, so this being false doesn't really contradict anything.

๐ŸŸ  Option 3 -> scope-error -> If false, it means carnivores don't lose fear when exposed to human food. But the passage clearly states they "become less avoidant" and lose "instinctive fear response" when fed by humans. This being false would contradict the passage, but let we are looking for the bigger contradiction.

๐ŸŸข Option 4 is correct -> If false, it means climate change has had significant effects. The passage supports this view, so the statement being false would actually agree with the passage. But the original statement (that climate change has negligible effects) directly contradicts the passage's clear position that climate change escalates conflicts.

The answer is Option 4 because it directly contradicts the passage's clear statement that climate change plays a part in increasing human-carnivore conflicts.

Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Left arrow: Previous question
  • Right arrow: Next question
  • S key: Jump to solution
  • Q key: Jump to question