Comprehension
Comprehension:
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?

Updated On: Jul 20, 2025
  • The reduction in carnivores’ instinctive fear response, resulting from their reliance upon human-provided food.
  • The predatory perception of humans as potential prey within the carnivores’ food chain.
  • The increased scarcity of resources due to climate change, forcing carnivores to venture outside their natural habitats in search of sustenance.
  • The natural aggression exhibited by carnivores, exacerbated by human interference, particularly when they are safeguarding their offspring or food sources.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

To determine the significant factor contributing to the habituation of carnivores to human presence, we analyze the comprehension passage. The passage discusses several causes of carnivore-human interactions, focusing on how carnivores become less avoidant of humans when they rely on human-provided food. This loss of instinctive fear makes them more likely to encounter humans. The specific detail that aligns with the question is this reduction in the instinctive fear response due to dependence on human food sources.

Thus, the correct answer from the given options is:

The reduction in carnivores’ instinctive fear response, resulting from their reliance upon human-provided food.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
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?

Updated On: Jul 20, 2025
  • The diversity and interspersion of working landscapes with carnivore habitats in rural areas increase the statistical probability of encounters between humans and carnivores.
  • 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.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

Based on the comprehension, the insights from Penteriani's research and Wilkinson's statement suggest that landscape heterogeneity leads to an increase in the probability of human-carnivore encounters. Wilkinson notes that in many low-income regions, particularly in the Global South, working landscapes are often intermixed with carnivore habitats. This mix of farmland, forests, and savannahs increases the probability of encounters because of the diverse environments occupied both by humans and carnivores. Penteriani’s findings indicate that these heterogeneous landscapes, by their nature, provide more opportunity statistically for interactions between humans and carnivores. Therefore, the correct conclusion is: The diversity and interspersion of working landscapes with carnivore habitats in rural areas increase the statistical probability of encounters between humans and carnivores.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
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?

Updated On: Jul 20, 2025
  • 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.
  • Human efforts to avoid risky behaviours around large carnivores have proven effective in reducing conflict incidents.
  • Carnivores lose their instinctive fear of humans, when consistently exposed to human food sources.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

To determine which statement, if false, would be inconsistent with the passage's concerns about the drivers of carnivore-human conflicts, we should examine each statement in the context of the passage.
The passage identifies multiple drivers of carnivore-human conflicts, including: aggression-based conflicts (e.g., protecting young or food sources), carnivores relying on human food leading to habituation, and predatory attacks (though rare). Human risky behaviors exacerbate these issues, and climate change is noted as a contributing factor due to resource scarcity leading to increased encounters. Here's the analysis of each option:
  • Option 1: Climate change has had negligible effects on the frequency of carnivore-human interactions in affected regions.
    This is inconsistent with the passage. The passage links climate change to an increase in conflicts as resources become scarcer, forcing humans and carnivores into more interactions.
  • Option 2: Predatory attacks by carnivores are a common occurrence and have steadily increased over the past few decades.
    Predatory attacks are described in the passage as rare, only accounting for 17% of attacks since 1955. If this statement were false, it would still be consistent with the passage, which does not emphasize an increase in predatory attacks.
  • Option 3: Human efforts to avoid risky behaviours around large carnivores have proven effective in reducing conflict incidents.
    If false, it would still align with the passage, which suggests that many attacks could have been avoided if humans reacted differently.
  • Option 4: Carnivores lose their instinctive fear of humans when consistently exposed to human food sources.
    This aligns with the passage's account of how human food sources lead carnivores to lose fear. If false, it would still be congruent since the loss of fear due to habituation to human food is not framed as a consistent occurrence in the passage.
Thus, the correct statement, if false, that would be inconsistent with the concerns raised in the passage is: Climate change has had negligible effects on the frequency of carnivore-human interactions in affected regions.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4

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

Updated On: Jul 20, 2025
  • Attempting to photograph wild animals from within secured viewing areas in national parks and protected zones.
  • Implementing 'food waste' management strategies to prevent wild animals being attracted to human food sources.
  • Unleashing dogs by pet owners in areas with known high concentrations of large carnivores.
  • Addressing the impact of climate change on the availability of resources for wildlife.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is C

Solution and Explanation

The correct scenario that would MOST likely exacerbate the frequency of carnivore-human conflicts is Unleashing dogs by pet owners in areas with known high concentrations of large carnivores. The passage provides evidence that interactions between unleashed dogs and carnivores increase the likelihood of human-carnivore conflicts. It notes that a significant proportion (66%) of coyote attacks involve a dog, often when dogs are unleashed and initiate a chase or enter areas with high carnivore activity.” Additionally, risky behaviors like walking an unleashed dog around such areas are identified as increasing the chances of an attack. In contrast, other options such as managing food waste aim to reduce conflict by minimizing carnivore attraction to human settlements, while photographing from secure areas is unlikely to provoke attacks. Although climate change is mentioned as a potential factor, the correlation is not yet fully established. Thus, walking unleashed dogs in areas populated by carnivores is most directly linked to conflict escalation.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top Questions on Reading Comprehension

View More Questions

Questions Asked in CAT exam

View More Questions