Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game Auth

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 4:27 am
Location: India
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:620
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

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 1:25 pm
Thanked: 11 times
Followed by:3 members

by MakeUrTimeCount » 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.

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 4:27 am
Location: India
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:620

by vinni.k » 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

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:07 am
Thanked: 19 times
Followed by:3 members

by GmatVerbal » 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?

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 641
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:15 am
Thanked: 149 times
Followed by:32 members
GMAT Score:760

by avik.ch » 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 !!

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 934
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 5:16 am
Location: AAMCHI MUMBAI LOCAL
Thanked: 63 times
Followed by:14 members

by [email protected] » 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.