đ Whatâs Inside This CAT RC Practice Post?
đ Authentic CAT Reading Comprehension Passage: Practice with a real RC passage from a previous CAT exam.
â
Detailed Questions with Step-by-Step Solutions: Each question is explained thoroughly for better understanding.
đ In-Depth Passage Analysis: Gain insights through line-by-line and paragraph-wise analysis, supplemented with a quick summary table for efficient revision.
đ Vocabulary Enhancement: Get a separate post explaining all tough words from the passage.
RC Passage
Direction for the questions 13 to 16: The passage below is accompanied by a set of four questions. Choose the best answer to 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 coauthored 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.
RC Line-wise Explanation
Paragraph 1
"There are three other common drivers for carnivore-human attacks, some of which are more preventable than others."
Explanation: There are three main causes of attacks by wild carnivores on humans, and while some can be prevented, others are more difficult to control.
"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."
Explanation: Attacks caused by instinctual behaviorsâlike defending offspring or foodâcan generally be prevented if humans avoid close encounters with wild animals and their resources.
Paragraph 2
"Carnivores that recognise humans as a means to get food, are a different story."
Explanation: Animals that associate people with food present a more serious and complex threat.
"As they become more reliant on human food they might find at campsites or in rubbish bins, they become less avoidant of humans."
Explanation: When carnivores regularly find food in human places like campsites or trash, they start to lose their fear of people.
"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."
Explanation: Without fear, animals approach humans more often, which can lead to conflict and usually results in the animal being killed.
"'A fed bear is a dead bear,' says Servheen, referring to a common saying among biologists and conservationists."
Explanation: This quote highlights the danger of feeding wild animals, especially bearsâit often leads to their death because they become a threat.
"Predatory or predation-related attacks are quite rare, only accounting for 17% of attacks in North America since 1955."
Explanation: Attacks where animals treat humans as prey are very uncommonâjust 17% over decades in North America.
"They occur when a carnivore views a human as prey and hunts it like it would any other animal it uses for food."
Explanation: These rare attacks happen when an animal sees a human as food and behaves accordingly.
Paragraph 3
"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."
Explanation: Humans provoke many attacks by trying to feed or photograph wild animals, especially in parks. These animals are often killed afterward for safety.
"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.
Explanation: Wilkinson explains that when animals get used to humans, it often leads to harmful outcomes for the animals, though people donât always see the consequences of their actions.
Paragraph 4
"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."
Explanation: According to Penterianiâs research, half of carnivore attacks in the last 75 years might have been prevented through better human behavior.
"A 2017 study coauthored by Penteriani found that engaging in risky behaviour around large carnivores increases the likelihood of an attack."
Explanation: The 2017 study showed that human actionsâespecially risky onesâraise the chances of being attacked.
Paragraph 5
"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."
Explanation: Letting kids play alone and walking dogs off-leash are two frequent behaviors that can lead to attacks.
"Wilkinson says 66% of coyote attacks involve a dog."
Explanation: Two-thirds of coyote attacks are connected to dogs, according to Wilkinson.
"[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.
Explanation: She elaborates that attacks often happen when dogs confront or are near coyotes, especially near dens.
Paragraph 6
"Experts believe climate change also plays a part in the escalation of human-carnivore conflicts, but the correlation still needs to be ironed out."
Explanation: Some researchers think climate change increases conflict between humans and carnivores, though the link isnât fully clear yet.
"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.
Explanation: Jen Miller notes that as resources like water or food dwindle, animals and humans are more likely to interact and clash.
"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."
Explanation: She gives an example of a drought in India where lions and people shared water spots, causing more attacks.
Paragraph 7
"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."
Explanation: Penterianiâs work shows that poorer regions with large farmlands tend to have more such conflicts.
"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.
Explanation: Wilkinson explains that in the Global South, farms and wild habitats often overlap, which naturally leads to more human-animal encounters.
RC Paragraph Explanation
Paragraph 1 Summary
Some carnivore attacks are driven by instinctive protective behaviors, and these are largely avoidable if humans steer clear of the animals and their food.
Paragraph 2 Summary
Animals that associate people with food lose their fear of humans, increasing conflict risk and often leading to the animals being killed. Predatory attacks, where humans are seen as prey, remain rare.
Paragraph 3 Summary
Tourist behaviors like taking selfies or feeding wild animals can lead to dangerous situations and result in animals being euthanized for public safety.
Paragraph 4 Summary
Half of carnivore attacks could have been prevented by safer human behavior, as highlighted by long-term studies of such incidents.
Paragraph 5 Summary
Risky behaviors like leaving children unattended and walking dogs without leashes are key contributors to attacks, especially those involving coyotes.
Paragraph 6 Summary
Climate change may be increasing human-animal encounters due to shared reliance on dwindling natural resources, as seen in cases like drought-driven lion attacks in India.
Paragraph 7 Summary
Low-income rural areas, especially in the Global South, experience more conflicts due to overlapping human and carnivore territories.
RC Quick Table Summary
| Paragraph Number | Main Idea |
|---|---|
| Paragraph 1 | Instinctual carnivore aggression can be avoided by human caution. |
| Paragraph 2 | Human-fed animals become dangerous and often end up euthanized. |
| Paragraph 3 | Feeding or approaching wild animals for photos often leads to fatal outcomes. |
| Paragraph 4 | Many attacks could be avoided if humans behaved more cautiously. |
| Paragraph 5 | Dogs and unsupervised children are major risk factors in human-wildlife attacks. |
| Paragraph 6 | Climate change may increase conflicts due to resource scarcity. |
| Paragraph 7 | More human-carnivore conflict occurs in rural, low-income regions. |
RC Questions
Ques 13. According to the passage, what is a significant factor that contributes to the habituation of carnivores to human presence?
Detailed explanation by Wordpandit: The passage explicitly states that carnivores become less avoidant of humans when they grow accustomed to accessing human foodâwhether from campsites or rubbish bins. This leads to a loss of their natural fear response, which significantly increases the likelihood of dangerous interactions. The phrase âA fed bear is a dead bearâ reinforces this idea, emphasizing how feeding carnivoresâor letting them become dependent on human foodâdirectly contributes to habituation and, ultimately, fatal consequences for the animal.
Option-wise Analysis
Option A: Incorrect. While natural aggression (such as defending offspring or food) is mentioned, it is described as a separate type of conflictânot a contributor to habituation. These conflicts are said to be avoidable if people stay away, but they donât lead to the loss of fear or increased comfort around humans.
Option B: Incorrect. Climate change is discussed as a potential future factor in increasing encounters between humans and carnivores due to resource scarcity. However, it is not linked to habituation or to the reduction in fear response.
Option C: Incorrect. Predatory attacks are rare and involve carnivores viewing humans as prey. But these attacks are distinct from habituation and not the cause of reduced fear or increased proximity to human settings.
Option D: Correct. The passage makes clear that reliance on human food reduces the carnivore's instinctive fear of people, leading to more encounters and conflicts. This behavioral change is central to the idea of habituation and is the most significant contributing factor.
Ques 14. 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?
Detailed explanation by Wordpandit: The passage clearly links landscape heterogeneityâthe intermixing of human-dominated land (like farmland) with natural carnivore habitatsâto a greater likelihood of human-carnivore encounters. According to Wilkinson, such landscapes, especially in the Global South, create statistically more opportunities for these interactions. This makes Option D the most accurate conclusion based on the evidence presented.
Option-wise Analysis
Option A: Incorrect. This option contradicts the passage. It wrongly claims that vast wilderness areas are less prone to conflicts, but the passage emphasizes that low-income, rural areasâeven those with expansive landscapesâsee more human-carnivore encounters due to landscape interspersion.
Option B: Incorrect. This misinterprets the idea of heterogeneity. The passage does not suggest that it reduces conflict; instead, it explicitly states that the mixing of human activity with carnivore territory increases the chance of conflict.
Option C: Incorrect. There is no mention in the passage about homogeneous landscapes or uniform agricultural practices leading to increased conflicts. The focus is on heterogeneous (mixed-use) environments, which increase riskânot predictable or uniform ones.
Option D: Correct. This directly reflects Wilkinsonâs statement that the diversity and interspersion of human and carnivore environments create more statistical opportunities for encounters and conflicts. It accurately summarizes the relationship outlined in the passage.
Ques 15. Which of the following statements, if false, would be inconsistent with the concerns raised in the passage regarding the drivers of carnivore-human conflicts?
Detailed explanation by Wordpandit: The question asks us to identify the statement whose falsity would directly contradict the ideas presented in the passage. This means we need to look for a statement that is consistent with the concerns raised in the passage, and if it turned out to be false, it would clash with those concerns. The passage discusses multiple causes of carnivore-human conflict, including behavioral factors, climate change, and geographic patterns. It highlights the role of climate change in increasing the likelihood of such conflicts, although it admits that the correlation is still being studied.
Option-wise Analysis
Option A: "Climate change has had negligible effects on the frequency of carnivore-human interactions in affected regions." If this statement is false, then climate change has had significant effects on these interactionsâwhich is in line with what the passage discusses. The passage mentions increasing conflict due to shared resources during droughts and habitat pressures. Therefore, if this were false, it would be inconsistent with the concern that climate change contributes to the problem. Hence, this is the correct answer.
Option B: "Predatory attacks by carnivores are a common occurrence and have steadily increased over the past few decades." If this is false, the truth would be that predatory attacks are not common, which is consistent with the passage stating they make up only 17% of cases since 1955. So, a false version of this statement aligns with the passage and doesnât contradict its concerns.
Option C: "Carnivores lose their instinctive fear of humans, when consistently exposed to human food sources." If this is false, it would suggest that carnivores retain their fear despite repeated food exposure. That would contradict the passage, which clearly explains that habitual access to human food reduces fear and leads to more dangerous encounters. However, this doesn't make Option C a better answer than A because A directly relates to a broader concern raisedâclimate changeâwhile C is more situational.
Option D: "Human efforts to avoid risky behaviours around large carnivores have proven effective in reducing conflict incidents." If false, this would imply that such efforts do not reduce conflicts. But the passage doesnât offer conclusive evidence that avoidance efforts have been successfulâit only suggests many attacks could have been avoided. So, falsifying this statement doesn't directly contradict the passageâit just reflects a lack of clarity or conclusive data.
Thus, Option A, when considered false, clearly contradicts the passageâs concerns and is the correct answer.
Ques 16. According to the passage, which of the following scenarios would MOST likely exacerbate the frequency of carnivore-human conflicts?
Detailed explanation by Wordpandit: The passage emphasizes several human behaviors that increase the likelihood of dangerous encounters with carnivores. One of the clearest examples discussed is the role of dogs in such situations. The 2017 study coauthored by Penteriani specifically identifies walking an unleashed dog as a common risky behavior. Wilkinson further supports this by noting that 66% of coyote attacks involve dogs, often in situations where dogs chase or are chased by carnivores, or when they inadvertently provoke protective responses near dens. In such cases, the human becomes part of the conflict, heightening the risk of an attack. Therefore, unleashing dogs in carnivore-prone areas is likely to significantly worsen the frequency of such conflicts.
Option-wise Analysis
Option A: "Implementing 'food waste' management strategies to prevent wild animals being attracted to human food sources." This action is preventive, not problematic. The passage notes that animals losing their fear of humans due to access to food at campsites or bins leads to more dangerous encounters. So managing waste would reduce, not increase, conflicts.
Option B: "Addressing the impact of climate change on the availability of resources for wildlife." This, again, would reduce the chance of encounters. The passage links climate change to increased competition for scarce resources like water, which brings humans and carnivores into closer contact. Addressing this would help mitigate conflict, not exacerbate it.
Option C: "Attempting to photograph wild animals from within secured viewing areas in national parks and protected zones." The passage criticizes unsafe practices like feeding or taking close pictures, but does not raise concerns about photographing animals from designated viewing areas. These areas are typically designed to ensure human safety and minimize animal disturbance.
Option D: "Unleashing dogs by pet owners in areas with known high concentrations of large carnivores." This is directly cited as a major contributing factor to attacks, especially with coyotes. It involves risky, uncontrolled behavior that can provoke carnivores, increasing both the frequency and severity of conflicts.
Thus, Option D is clearly the most likely to exacerbate carnivore-human conflicts based on the evidence provided in the passage.
