• Economist Test Prep
    Free Trial & Practice Exam
    BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Economist Test Prep
  • Veritas Prep
    Free Veritas GMAT Class
    Experience Lesson 1 Live Free

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Veritas Prep
  • Kaplan Test Prep
    Free Practice Test & Review
    How would you score if you took the GMAT

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Kaplan Test Prep
  • PrepScholar GMAT
    5 Day FREE Trial
    Study Smarter, Not Harder

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    PrepScholar GMAT
  • Magoosh
    Magoosh
    Study with Magoosh GMAT prep

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Magoosh
  • EMPOWERgmat Slider
    1 Hour Free
    BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    EMPOWERgmat Slider
  • e-gmat Exclusive Offer
    Get 300+ Practice Questions
    25 Video lessons and 6 Webinars for FREE

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    e-gmat Exclusive Offer
  • Target Test Prep
    5-Day Free Trial
    5-day free, full-access trial TTP Quant

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Target Test Prep
  • Varsity Tutors
    Award-winning private GMAT tutoring
    Register now and save up to $200

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Varsity Tutors

Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game Auth

This topic has 5 member replies
vinni.k Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Posted:
333 messages
Followed by:
1 members
Thanked:
6 times
Test Date:
2016
Target GMAT Score:
700+
GMAT Score:
620

Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game Auth

Post Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:46 am
Elapsed Time: 00:00
  • Lap #[LAPCOUNT] ([LAPTIME])
    Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game Authority would have the public believe that increases in the number of marine fish caught demonstrate that this resource is no longer endangered. This is a specious argument, as unsound as it would be to assert that the ever-increasing rate at which rain forests are being cut down demonstrates a lack of danger to that resource. The real cause of the increased fish-catch is a greater efficiency in using technologies that deplete resources.

    The environmentalist's statements, if true, best support which of the following as a conclusion?

    (A) The use of technology is the reason for the increasing encroachment of people on nature.
    (B) It is possible to determine how many fish are in the sea in some way other than by catching fish.
    (C) The proportion of marine fish that are caught is as high as the proportion of rain forest'trees that are cut down each year.
    (D) Modern technologies waste resources by catching inedible fish.
    (E) Marine fish continue to be an endangered resource.

    Answer is E.

    Can anyone please explain what is wrong with A. Both A and E seems to be very close to me, but I don't understand the exact reason to eliminate A. If anyone can explain in detail, that would be great..
    Thanks & Regards
    Vinni

    Need free GMAT or MBA advice from an expert? Register for Beat The GMAT now and post your question in these forums!
    MakeUrTimeCount Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts Default Avatar
    Joined
    11 Dec 2011
    Posted:
    104 messages
    Followed by:
    3 members
    Thanked:
    11 times
    Post Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:04 am
    The environmentalist opposed the commissioner's believe that "the resource is no longer endangered" i.e he put his points forward to conclude the reverse.

    Also the paragraph does no say that the use of technology is causing increased enrochment. It just says that greater efficiency is the cause if increased fish-catch.

    I hope above make sense.

    Thanked by: vinni.k
    vinni.k Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
    Joined
    17 Apr 2011
    Posted:
    333 messages
    Followed by:
    1 members
    Thanked:
    6 times
    Test Date:
    2016
    Target GMAT Score:
    700+
    GMAT Score:
    620
    Post Wed Dec 14, 2011 8:07 am
    MakeUrTimeCount wrote:
    The environmentalist opposed the commissioner's believe that "the resource is no longer endangered" i.e he put his points forward to conclude the reverse.

    Also the paragraph does no say that the use of technology is causing increased enrochment. It just says that greater efficiency is the cause if increased fish-catch.

    I hope above make sense.
    Thanks for your reply.

    By posting this question, I wanted to know if I am moving in the right direction.

    Regards
    Vinni

    GmatVerbal Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts Default Avatar
    Joined
    12 Nov 2009
    Posted:
    138 messages
    Followed by:
    3 members
    Thanked:
    19 times
    Post Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:50 pm
    Environmentalist argument: Increased numbers are due to greater efficiency in using the technologies. Doesn't mean increased encroachment?

    avik.ch Legendary Member
    Joined
    20 Apr 2011
    Posted:
    641 messages
    Followed by:
    32 members
    Thanked:
    149 times
    Post Tue Dec 20, 2011 10:48 pm
    I will extend to what GmatVerbal has mentioned !!

    Here the issue of "rain forest" is an analogy or in simple term "additional premise". This is a typical logical structure : where you want to bolster the conclusion with some parallel cases or example. They add no values to the theme or main point of the passages/stimulus.

    So when we find the conclusion we will not see this "rain forest" issue in the answer choice --

    Now I hope you got why E is the answer !!

    This structure often give rise to "false analogy" - when the dynamics of the comparison do not have enough parallels then the analogy must be deemed false. This is a typical logical fallacy.

    E.g : Being forced to pay higher taxes to pay for universal healthcare is unjust because it is like Mr.X being forced to the back of the bus.

    I hope this helps !!

    amit.trivedi@ymail.com Legendary Member
    Joined
    09 Nov 2010
    Posted:
    934 messages
    Followed by:
    14 members
    Thanked:
    63 times
    Test Date:
    N.A
    Target GMAT Score:
    750
    Post Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:35 am
    Yes avik is right...

    The environmentalist is giving a counter premise by giving a parallel reasoning.


    There is nothing to do with the trees and the forests.

    hence E.

    Hope this helped...

    _________________
    IT IS TIME TO BEAT THE GMAT

    LEARNING, APPLICATION AND TIMING IS THE FACT OF GMAT AND LIFE AS WELL... KEEP PLAYING!!!

    Whenever you feel that my post really helped you to learn something new, please press on the 'THANK' button.

    Best Conversation Starters

    1 lheiannie07 116 topics
    2 ardz24 64 topics
    3 swerve 63 topics
    4 LUANDATO 62 topics
    5 M7MBA 57 topics
    See More Top Beat The GMAT Members...

    Most Active Experts

    1 image description Brent@GMATPrepNow

    GMAT Prep Now Teacher

    170 posts
    2 image description EconomistGMATTutor

    The Economist GMAT Tutor

    129 posts
    3 image description Rich.C@EMPOWERgma...

    EMPOWERgmat

    122 posts
    4 image description GMATGuruNY

    The Princeton Review Teacher

    121 posts
    5 image description Scott@TargetTestPrep

    Target Test Prep

    118 posts
    See More Top Beat The GMAT Experts