CAT 2024 Slot 2 · VARC · RC passage 1: Drivers of Carnivore-Human Conflict

The full passage and all 4 questions (Q9–Q12) from CAT 2024 Slot 2, with answers and solutions.

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 9 · RC Detail and Fact Based Questions

According to the passage, which of the following scenarios would MOST likely exacerbate the frequency of carnivore-human conflicts?
  1. A
    Addressing the impact of climate change on the availability of resources for wildlife.
  2. B
    Unleashing dogs by pet owners in areas with known high concentrations of large carnivores.
  3. C
    Implementing 'food waste' management strategies to prevent wild animals being attracted to human food sources.
  4. D
    Attempting to photograph wild animals from within secured viewing areas in national parks and protected zones.
Pick an option, then check.
Answer & solution

Answer: Option B

The question asks which scenario would most likely increase carnivore-human conflict. The passage names two of the most common risky behaviours from Penteriani's 2017 study: 'parents leaving their children to play outside unattended and walking an unleashed dog'. Wilkinson adds that '66% of coyote attacks involve a dog'.

Option 2 – unleashing dogs in areas with many large carnivores – is exactly that risky behaviour, placed where the risk is highest.

Option 1 describes addressing the impact of climate change, which would reduce conflict, not increase it.

Option 3 describes food-waste management that keeps animals away from human food. The passage says reliance on human food makes carnivores lose their fear, so this would reduce conflict.

Option 4 has people photographing from secured viewing areas. The passage's concern is people taking pictures with animals or feeding them in the open; a secured area removes that contact.

Shortcut: for 'most likely to increase' questions, look for the option that repeats a risk factor the passage names explicitly, and drop options that describe a remedy.

Hence, the answer is option 2.

Question 10 · RC Inference Questions

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?
  1. A
    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.
  2. B
    Homogeneous landscapes with uniform agricultural practices are more likely to experience high rates of human-carnivore conflicts due to the predictability of resources.
  3. C
    The diversity and interspersion of working landscapes with carnivore habitats in rural areas increase the statistical probability of encounters between humans and carnivores.
  4. D
    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.
Pick an option, then check.
Answer & solution

Answer: Option C

The last paragraph links conflict to 'areas of low-income countries dominated by vast rural landscapes and farmland', and Wilkinson explains why: working landscapes in the Global South 'are really heterogeneous, that are interspersed with carnivore habitats, forests and savannahs, which creates a lot more opportunity for these encounters, just statistically'.

Option 3 restates this: diverse working landscapes mixed with carnivore habitats raise the statistical chance of encounters.

Option 1 reverses it – the passage says heterogeneity increases encounters, not that it gives wildlife more refuge.

Option 2 brings in homogeneous landscapes and the 'predictability of resources', neither of which the passage discusses.

Option 4 talks of contiguous wilderness with no people. The passage is about rural farmland mixed with habitat, where people and carnivores overlap.

Shortcut: when a quotation ends with a phrase like 'just statistically', the correct option usually keeps that hedge. Option 3 speaks of 'statistical probability'; the others make firm causal claims.

Hence, the answer is option 3.

Question 11 · RC Detail and Fact Based Questions

According to the passage, what is a significant factor that contributes to the habituation of carnivores to human presence?
  1. A
    The natural aggression exhibited by carnivores, exacerbated by human interference, particularly when they are safeguarding their offspring or food sources.
  2. B
    The reduction in carnivores' instinctive fear response, resulting from their reliance upon human-provided food.
  3. C
    The increased scarcity of resources due to climate change, forcing carnivores to venture outside their natural habitats in search of sustenance.
  4. D
    The predatory perception of humans as potential prey within the carnivores' food chain.
Pick an option, then check.
Answer & solution

Answer: Option B

The second paragraph explains habituation: carnivores that come to rely on human food 'become less avoidant of humans', and 'losing that instinctive fear response puts them into more situations where they could get into an altercation with a human'.

Option 2 – loss of the instinctive fear response through reliance on human-provided food – is a direct restatement.

Option 1 describes natural aggression, such as mothers protecting young. The passage treats that as a separate driver that can be avoided by keeping away, not as a cause of habituation.

Option 3 is about climate change and resource scarcity. That raises contact, but the passage does not link it to animals getting used to people.

Option 4 is about predatory attacks, where a carnivore sees a human as prey – a separate, rare category.

Shortcut: 'habituation' means getting used to something. Look for the paragraph that describes animals losing their wariness, and match the cause it gives.

Hence, the answer is option 2.

Question 12 · RC Inference Questions

Which of the following statements, if false, would be inconsistent with the concerns raised in the passage regarding the drivers of carnivore-human conflicts?
  1. A
    Predatory attacks by carnivores are a common occurrence and have steadily increased over the past few decades.
  2. B
    Climate change has had negligible effects on the frequency of carnivore-human interactions in affected regions.
  3. C
    Human efforts to avoid risky behaviours around large carnivores have proven effective in reducing conflict incidents.
  4. D
    Carnivores lose their instinctive fear of humans, when consistently exposed to human food sources.
Pick an option, then check.
Answer & solution

Answer: Option B

This is the official IIM answer, but the question is disputed; see the note at the end.

How the official key reads it: the passage raises climate change as one of the drivers of conflict – 'Experts believe climate change also plays a part in the escalation of human-carnivore conflicts' – and gives the example of more lion attacks in western India during a drought. Option 2 says climate change has had 'negligible effects'. That runs against a concern the passage raises, so the key treats it as the statement that conflicts with the passage.

Option 1 says predatory attacks are common and rising. The passage says they are 'quite rare' (17% since 1955), but predatory attacks are not presented as one of the growing concerns.

Option 3 says efforts to avoid risky behaviour have worked. The passage does not discuss whether such efforts succeeded, so neither the statement nor its opposite clashes with it.

Option 4 says carnivores lose their fear when exposed to human food. The passage states this directly.

Note on the dispute: read strictly, 'if false' means negating each statement. Negating option 4 (carnivores keep their fear) contradicts the passage outright, while negating option 2 (climate change does have effects) agrees with it. Cracku and 2IIM both disagree with the official key on these grounds, and the key was challenged. For scoring, the official answer is option 2.

Shortcut: in 'if false' questions, write down the negation of each option and test it against the passage. When the official answer differs from that test, it usually means the examiner read the question as 'which statement conflicts with the passage'.

Hence, the answer is option 2.

Take this paper as a timed test
Real exam timing, instant score, rank and topic-wise analysis.

Practice timed →