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 – 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 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. “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.

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

✅ Correct Option: 4

Answer: Option 3 – "Carnivores lose their instinctive fear of humans when consistently exposed to human food sources."

How to approach the question

The question asks which statement, if false, would contradict the passage. So we are looking for the statement the passage itself relies on. If that statement were false, the passage's argument would fall apart.

Option-by-option check

  • Option 3 (correct): The passage says carnivores that rely on human food "become less avoidant of humans" and lose "that instinctive fear response," which leads to altercations. This is one of the passage's main concerns. If it were false, this driver of conflict would not exist, so the passage would be inconsistent.
  • Option 1 (wrong): The passage says predatory attacks are "quite rare" (17% of attacks in North America since 1955). The statement is already false according to the passage, so its being false is consistent with the passage.
  • Option 2 (wrong): The passage says 50% of attacks could have been avoided if humans reacted differently, and that risky behaviour raises the likelihood of attack. It never says that efforts to avoid risky behaviour have already been proven effective. If this statement were false, the passage's concerns would still stand.
  • Option 4 (wrong): The passage says experts believe climate change plays a part in escalating conflicts. "Negligible effects" goes against this, so the statement is already false according to the passage. Its being false is consistent with the passage.

Quick rule: Options 1 and 4 are claims the passage rejects, and Option 2 is a claim the passage never makes. Only Option 3 is stated directly and supports the passage, so only its falsity would create an inconsistency.

Keyboard Shortcuts

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