| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
NSNguyen
Really wants to Beat The GMAT!
Joined: 04 May 2007
Posts: 279
Thanks given: 4
Thanked 1 times in 1 posts
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 8:49 am Post subject: Consumers |
 |
|
Consumers will be hurt by the new lower ceiling on halibut catches. Given the law of supply and demand these restrictions are likely to result in an increase in the price of the fish.
Which one of the following, if assumed, would do most to justify the claim that the price of halibut will increase?
(A) The demand for halibut will not decrease substantially after the new restrictions are imposed.
(B) There is a connection between the supply of halibut and the demand for it.
(C) The lost production of halibut will not be replaced by increased production of other fish.
(D) The demand for other fish will be affected by the new restrictions.
(E) The amount of halibut consumed represents a very small proportion of all fish consumed.
_________________
Please share your idea and your reasoning  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Anon
Just gettin' started!
Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 27
Thanks given: 0
Thanked 1 times in 1 posts
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 9:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
A
he demand for halibut will not decrease substantially after the new restrictions are imposed.
Given the law of supply and demand |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jslavi01
Just gettin' started!
Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 15
Thanks given: 1
Thanked 0 times in 0 posts
Location: Philadelphia
Test Date: Sept 08
Target GMAT Score: 700
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anon wrote: | A
he demand for halibut will not decrease substantially after the new restrictions are imposed.
Given the law of supply and demand |
The supply decreases while the demand stays the same or rises. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pranavc
Really wants to Beat The GMAT!
Joined: 26 Feb 2008
Posts: 160
Thanks given: 9
Thanked 1 times in 1 posts
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| What is the OA? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
raunekk
GMAT Destroyer!
Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 526
Thanks given: 10
Thanked 20 times in 20 posts
Target GMAT Score: 740
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 10:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It took time to understand the question itself 
IMO: B
Or i guess i hav not understood the question yet 
OA?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Stuart Kovinsky
GMAT Instructor
Joined: 08 Jan 2008
Posts: 1091
Thanks given: 0
Thanked 163 times in 151 posts
Location: Toronto
GMAT Score: 800
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:56 am Post subject: Re: Consumers |
|
|
| NSNguyen wrote: | Consumers will be hurt by the new lower ceiling on halibut catches. Given the law of supply and demand these restrictions are likely to result in an increase in the price of the fish.
Which one of the following, if assumed, would do most to justify the claim that the price of halibut will increase?
(A) The demand for halibut will not decrease substantially after the new restrictions are imposed.
(B) There is a connection between the supply of halibut and the demand for it.
(C) The lost production of halibut will not be replaced by increased production of other fish.
(D) The demand for other fish will be affected by the new restrictions.
(E) The amount of halibut consumed represents a very small proportion of all fish consumed. |
Often, a good way to strengthen an argument is to eliminate weakeners.
Let's use Kaplan's denial test on (A):
"It is not true that the demand for halibut will not decrease substantially after the new restrictions are imposed."
After eliminating the double negative:
"The demand for halibut WILL decrease substantially after the new restrictions are imposed."
How does this make us feel about the conclusion that price will increase? Well, if demand decreases substantially, it seems unlikely that price will increase as the author predicts. So, the denial of (A) WEAKENS the argument.
Since the denial of (A) is a weakener, the original (A) must be a strengthener: pick (A).
_________________
Stuart Kovinsky, B.A. LL.B.
Academic Co-ordinator
Kaplan Test Prep & Admissions
Toronto Office
1-800-KAP-TEST
Learn more about me |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NSNguyen
Really wants to Beat The GMAT!
Joined: 04 May 2007
Posts: 279
Thanks given: 4
Thanked 1 times in 1 posts
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 11:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The OA: A
_________________
Please share your idea and your reasoning |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ildude02
GMAT Destroyer!
Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Posts: 307
Thanks given: 0
Thanked 6 times in 6 posts
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 7:58 pm Post subject: Re: Consumers |
|
|
| Stuart Kovinsky wrote: | | NSNguyen wrote: | Consumers will be hurt by the new lower ceiling on halibut catches. Given the law of supply and demand these restrictions are likely to result in an increase in the price of the fish.
Which one of the following, if assumed, would do most to justify the claim that the price of halibut will increase?
(A) The demand for halibut will not decrease substantially after the new restrictions are imposed.
(B) There is a connection between the supply of halibut and the demand for it.
(C) The lost production of halibut will not be replaced by increased production of other fish.
(D) The demand for other fish will be affected by the new restrictions.
(E) The amount of halibut consumed represents a very small proportion of all fish consumed. |
Often, a good way to strengthen an argument is to eliminate weakeners.
Let's use Kaplan's denial test on (A):
"It is not true that the demand for halibut will not decrease substantially after the new restrictions are imposed."
After eliminating the double negative:
"The demand for halibut WILL decrease substantially after the new restrictions are imposed."
How does this make us feel about the conclusion that price will increase? Well, if demand decreases substantially, it seems unlikely that price will increase as the author predicts. So, the denial of (A) WEAKENS the argument.
Since the denial of (A) is a weakener, the original (A) must be a strengthener: pick (A). |
Stuart,
I see that C also fits into the supply demand evidence with the denial test. I thought more in terms that the reference to "fish" price in the evidence can be pertaining to prices of fish in general and that's the reason I went with C. If the "fish" in the evidence is only concerning Halibut, then my reasoning is wrong since it doesn't reallly matter if other types of fish catch increases or not. But how to make sure what this "fish" refers to and this is not a scope shift question? I'd really appreciate your response. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NSNguyen
Really wants to Beat The GMAT!
Joined: 04 May 2007
Posts: 279
Thanks given: 4
Thanked 1 times in 1 posts
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 9:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi ildude02,
what will happen if the demand for halibu decreases?
_________________
Please share your idea and your reasoning |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ildude02
GMAT Destroyer!
Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Posts: 307
Thanks given: 0
Thanked 6 times in 6 posts
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NSNguyen wrote: | Hi ildude02,
what will happen if the demand for halibu decreases? |
Then the reduced supply will not affect the price. So this should be a valid assumption.
But my basic question was, how would we know that we should only restrict ourselves to the halibut fish when the conclusion says "fish" without restricting it to "halibut fish" while the supporting statement with regards to the ceiling talks about "halibut" fish. So both A and C seeem like valid assumtpiosn depends on how we interpret. If someone can explain where I'm wroing with my reasoning, I would really appreciate it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
reachac
Moderator
Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Posts: 503
Thanks given: 1
Thanked 8 times in 8 posts
Location: New Delhi
Test Date: 7th Aug
Target GMAT Score: 770
GMAT Score: 780
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with Ildude02, theres a clear scope shift in the stem from halibut to "fish" in general.
_________________
I know well what I am fleeing from but not what I am in search of. ...... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stuart Kovinsky
GMAT Instructor
Joined: 08 Jan 2008
Posts: 1091
Thanks given: 0
Thanked 163 times in 151 posts
Location: Toronto
GMAT Score: 800
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| reachac wrote: | | I agree with Ildude02, theres a clear scope shift in the stem from halibut to "fish" in general. |
The stimulus says:
"Given the law of supply and demand these restrictions are likely to result in an increase in the price of the fish."
The use of the definite article "the" clearly indicates that we're talking about halibut, not all fish in general. There's no scope shift.
_________________
Stuart Kovinsky, B.A. LL.B.
Academic Co-ordinator
Kaplan Test Prep & Admissions
Toronto Office
1-800-KAP-TEST
Learn more about me |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
