BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

OG-12 CR Q-91 Environmentalist

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 10:53 am
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:4 members

OG-12 CR Q-91 Environmentalist

by ankit0411 » Wed May 02, 2012 10:31 am
Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game Authority would have the public believe that increases in the number of marine �sh 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 �sh-catch is a greater ef�ciency 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 �sh are in the sea in some way other than by catching �sh.
(C) The proportion of marine �sh 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 �sh.
(E) Marine �sh continue to be an endangered resource.

What I understand from the argument is:
The commissioner wants the public to believe that marine fish is not endangered anymore, whereas , it is the reverse case.
I think even A support's the conclusion well enough by saying that technology is the root cause for encroachment ?

Please help :)
Thanks
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 1:52 pm
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:2 members

by transfer9858 » Wed May 02, 2012 10:45 am
Whats the official answer?

I would say E because the environmentalist is saying, " no, the fish are still not safe and your argument makes no sense because your just getting better and catching more fish. Also, if I were to get create a better technology to cut down trees, does that mean there are more trees and so trees aren't in danger anymore? " So at the end, fish are still endangered. Make sense?
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 10:53 am
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:4 members

by ankit0411 » Wed May 02, 2012 11:07 am
transfer9858 wrote:Whats the official answer?

I would say E because the environmentalist is saying, " no, the fish are still not safe and your argument makes no sense because your just getting better and catching more fish. Also, if I were to get create a better technology to cut down trees, does that mean there are more trees and so trees aren't in danger anymore? " So at the end, fish are still endangered. Make sense?
Yes, the OA is E .

Thanks mate ! I get that
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 9:57 pm
Thanked: 1 times

by vinodsundaram » Sun Aug 19, 2012 9:29 pm
the question is cleverly framed. To counter one argument, an analogy has been used.

Analogy : " More trees cut down doesnt imply trees are in danger.
Comm Argument: More fishes caught, hence less danger.
Environmentalist : " More fishes due to technological advances"
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:13 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:4 members
GMAT Score:650

by tisrar02 » Mon Aug 20, 2012 9:38 am
Watch out for these types of questions!

If you read carefully, A just restates the whole argument in a tidy way by saying that technology helps people be more efficient at catching fish or cutting down trees. transfer9858 explained why E is the best answer so you don't need my explanation.
Dedication is what leads to success...
Top
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 3:03 am

by allegro2006 » Mon Aug 20, 2012 2:15 pm
The answer Choice A -- The use of technology is the reason for the increasing encroachment of people on nature. -- is too strong... No where in the stem has it been stated (nor is the discussion around) increased human encroachment of nature..

The parallel comparisons do talk about cutting trees and catching too many fish -- but the verbiage in choice A just cannot be verified as ..( Cutting trees and catching too many fish may or may not be construed as increased human encroachment of nature)
Top
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 83
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 12:42 am

by hjafferi » Thu Aug 23, 2012 5:05 am
IMO E

Commissioner says fish are not endangered.
Environmentalist argues and gives a conclusion that fish are still endangered.

The environmentalist is not talking against technology but is givi g a counter argument to the commissioners argument.
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1