Thankyou Dana for all your efforts in making me understand this toughie.DanaJ wrote:OK I am going to try it again...
Why should you be confused? So you have the argument:
- illegal fishermen started operating in 1992
- legal fishermen were still putting in the same amount of effort in their attempt to catch lobsters, but their overall catch diminished by 9000 tons in 1996 as compared to 1992
- so we need to conclude that the 9000 tons went to the illegal fishermen
But what if there was something else that triggered the decline in the legal fishermen's catch? Option A provides a hint: the catch might have been smaller because the total population of lobsters had declined because of overfishing. If the illegal fishermen had gone too far with fishing in one year, this might have affected the lobster population for years to come, because there were fewer of them mate and produce new lobsters.
Negate B and see if the argument falls apart: The average annual lobster catch, in tons, of an outlaw fishing boat has decreased steadily since 1992. Does this mean that the illegal fishermen could not have been responsible for the 9000 ton decrease? No.
D does not matter, since the amount of decrease/increase in catch or its previous levels are issues not discussed in the argument. The argument is simply trying to establish the source of the decrease.
Yes A is the assumption here because if the poaching reach a very high level then the legal catch would almost diminish as the year progress because no lobster would be there to mate....so it has to be assumed that poaching was not so extensive....hence A it is
As far as D is concerned , i understand that the arg is concerned with the source of the decrease which is poaching here...
Hwever not very confident on B.....i m little confused with the negation that you have applied for B...please elaborate a bit more on B...however my interpretation of B is that if poaching has steadily increased from 92 then by now all the lobsters should be gone...none were left for mating...so i think this could possibly be one of the assumptions here....Does it make sense?.....Please share your thoughts...
Thankyou!