Critical Reasoning

In parts of the Caribbean, the manatee, an endangered marine mammal, has long been
hunted for its meat. Having noted the manatee hunters’ expert knowledge of manatees’
habits, local conservationists are encouraging the hunters to stop hunting and instead to
take tourists on boat rides to see manatees. Tourist interest is high, so the plan has
promise of achieving the twin goals of giving the former hunters a good income and
helping ensure the manatees’ survival.
Which of the following, if true, raises the most serious doubt about the plan’s chance of
success?
A. Many tourists who visit these parts of the Caribbean are uninterested in manatees
and would not be willing to pay what the former manatee hunters would have to
charge for boat rides to see manatees.
B. Recovery of the species would enable some hunting to continue without putting
the manatees’ survival in jeopardy again.
C. In areas where manatees have traditionally been hunted for food, local people
could easily replace the manatee meat in their diets with other foods obtained
from the sea.
D. There would not be enough former manatee hunters to act as guides for all the
tourists who want to see manatees.
E. To maintain their current income, manatee hunters who switched to guiding
tourists would have to use far larger boats and make many more trips into the
manatees’ fragile habitat than they currently do.

I think the answer should be a but it is given as d

PLease help, thanks

Since the question asks you to put a doubt on the plans, so options B & C are out.

A ->>>In the argument, it is specified that the tourist interest is high.
D ->>>Since, the species is endangered one, so we can assume that there may not be many hunters. So, the plan will be jeopardized , if there are not enough hunters to become guides.
E ->>> that seems not to be a serious threat to the plan.

I think the major point is that if you do not have enough resources, then you cannot execute the plan.So, keeping in mind, we can resolve this issue.

IMO A.

https://www.beatthegmat.com/manatee-t16618-15.html#75140

OA is E, but I have a beef with it.

I like A better:


A> Although the passage says "Tourist interest is high" it doesn't say that it is high for the particular purpose of watching the animals. Further to my argument is the fact that GMAT answer choices never contradict the information provided as evidence

E> Hunters may not be able to maintain "current income levels" but the objective of the plan is merely a "good income." So this choice casts doubt over an entirely different conclusion, not the one in the argument.

Thoughts?

A is definitely better than E.

The plan is to
1) ensure mantees survival
2) give former hunters an income

E says that, to maintain their current income the hunters have to get a big boat and make more trips. But it never says they won't do it. So this doesn't seriously affect the success of plan.

But A definitely does. Tourist interest may be high in the area as stated in the passage, but if they are uninterested in mantees, then the plan will definitely fail.

i will go with A..

conclusion:Tourist interest is high, so the plan has
promise of achieving of the twin goals giving the former hunters a good income and helping ensure the manatees’ survival.

assumption: Hunters will get good income by taking tourists for rides.


A)Many tourists who visit these parts of the Caribbean are uninterested in manatees and would not be willing to pay what the former manatee hunters would have to charge for boat rides to see manatees.

If this is the case then hunters will be definately going back to hunting if they are not paid enough or getting enough income.


Larger boats and higher frequency of trips is not what the argument is about.

D Cant be the answer because the number of hunters as guides is not discussed. It can be possible that only few hunters working as guide will suffice if there are bigger boats..the point is not strong enough to weaken.

thanks.

The answer is E.
A cannot be the answer because it disapproves one of the fact given in the passage. The passage states that tourists interests are high. We are not supposed to search for statements that contradict the given truth but to find statements that provide another reason for the plan to fail.
Answer choice E says that too much disturbance will harm their fragile habitat. Ultimately, the mammals life will be endangered again and the motive of conservationists would be destroyed. So this raises doubts about the plan to save the mammals.

Many doesn't say how many .... 50 in 1000 or 700 in 1000

(E)

Is the Q correct is the first point comes to my mind.

tourists would be interested is claimed by the passage and answer choice A refutes this claim. So this SC is a case of contradiction.

How to act in such situations. I would not select A here.

A cannot be the answer because it disapproves one of the fact given in the passage. The passage states that tourists interests are high. We are not supposed to search for statements that contradict the given truth but to find statements that provide another reason for the plan to fail.

Tourist interest is high but they might have interest in only visiting Caribbean and natural scenery ... no where it is mention that there interest is high in watching mantees only. So in now way option A is disapproves fact given in the passage.

IMO - A

IMO E

the question can be framed as wht will weaken the plan of success....

Option A cannot be true bcos in the argument itself it is given that "Tourist interest are high" which implies tht the tourist are interested in seeing the manatee. So if the arg states tht then option A gets completely ruled out.


If we apply the denial test....using option E the argument compltely falls apart. If the income of the hunters is not met by just catering to the tourist round then why will they shift from hunting to conservation.

So I feel A is a better option