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

Redeem

Outlaw fishing--Assumption

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 193
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:53 am
Thanked: 4 times
Followed by:5 members

Outlaw fishing--Assumption

by amysky_0205 » Thu Jan 31, 2013 12:55 am
In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from the territorial waters of the country of Belukia. Soon after, the annual tonnage of lobster legally harvested in Belukian waters began declining; in 1996, despite there being no reduction in the level of legal lobster fishing activity, the local catch was 9,000 tons below pre-1992 levels. It is therefore highly likely that the outlaw fishing boats harvested about 9,000 tons of lobster illegally that year.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. The illegal lobster harvesting was not so extensive that the population of catchable lobsters in Belukia's territorial waters had sharply declined by 1996
B. The average annual lobster catch, in tons, of an outlaw fishing boat is has increased steadily since 1992.
C. Outlaw fishing boats do not, as a group, harvest more lobsters than do licensed lobster-fishing boats.
D. The annual legal lobster harvest in Belukia in 1996 was not significantly less than 9,000 tons.
E. A significant proportion of Belukia's operators of licensed lobster-fishing boats were out of business between 1992 and 1996

OA: A

I narrowed down the answer to A, B and E.

But chose E instead...

Premise: Lobster legally harvested declining.
No reduction in legal lobster fishing activity, local catch was below pre-1992 level.

Conclusion: Outlaw fishing boats harvested about 9000 tons illegally last yr.

Correct me if i'm wrong!

thank u so much!
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 9:53 am
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:770

by HerrGrau » Fri Feb 01, 2013 8:12 am
Hi Amy,

You are pretty close with this one. The idea here is that in 1992 the lobster pirates started stealing lobsters from the waters of Belukia. Fast forward to 1996 and even though the LEGAL harvesters are working just as hard as always they got 9000 tons less lobster. So the author concluded that in 1996 the pirates harvested those 9000 tons making them unavailable to the legal harvesters. That is possible.

Here a little parallel situation (it's not perfect but maybe it will help). Imagine a cornfield with 100 stalks of corn. If I take 5 of them then there are only 5 left for you. That's what this conclusion says. But there is another possibility, what if you are supposed to leave half the corn on the field every year to provide nutrients for next years corn and I last year I harvested the portion that was supposed to left behind. Well, this year, the crop available to you is smaller not because I took some of this years crop but because I took some of last years crop.

A. The illegal lobster harvesting was not so extensive that the population of catchable lobsters in Belukia's territorial waters had sharply declined by 1996
Correct. If this statement is false (meaning you negate it) then the conclusion is false
So if you say: the harvesting was so extensive that the pop. of catch-able lobsters had sharply declined by 1996 that goes against the conclusion because the conclusion is based on the idea that the legal harvesters did not get the 9000 so the pirates must have. This is saying that the 9000 didn't exist in the first place because over the years the population had severely declined.

B. The average annual lobster catch, in tons, of an outlaw fishing boat has increased steadily since 1992.
This makes no difference. The catch of an outlaw fishing boat could have increased or not and it is neither proved nor disproved that the pirates harvested 9000 tons of lobster. Maybe in 1992 they harvested 1000 tons and in 1996 they harvested 2000 tons.

C. Outlaw fishing boats do not, as a group, harvest more lobsters than do licensed lobster-fishing boats. Same as choice B

D. The annual legal lobster harvest in Belukia in 1996 was not significantly less than 9,000 tons.
This one could be tricky if you miss the word LEGAL. But again, as with B and C this has zero affect on the pirate harvest and neither confirms nor denies the conclusion

E. A significant proportion of Belukia's operators of licensed lobster-fishing boats were out of business between 1992 and 1996
It doesn't matter that many of the operators were out of business. Even if there were fewer operators in 1996 compared to 1992 we are told as a premise that there was no reduction in lobster fishing activity

Let me know if you have any further questions that I can share my advice on.

HG.

PS: Remember that with assumption question you can do the negation test. If you negate the correct answer it MUST deny the conclusion. The wrong answer will have no effect.
"It is a curious property of research activity that after the problem has been solved the solution seems obvious. This is true not only for those who have not previously been acquainted with the problem, but also for those who have worked over it for years." -Dr. Edwin Land

GMAT Blog and GMAT Tutoring: www.AtlanticGMAT.com
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2095
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:22 pm
Thanked: 1443 times
Followed by:247 members

by ceilidh.erickson » Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:09 pm
Hi Amy,

As HerrGrau said, your reasoning was pretty close, but I think you're missing one major element: the question asks which of the following is an assumption on which the argument DEPENDS. I think you were answering the question which of the following COULD BE another consideration?

When you're searching for an assumption, you want to think about what's NECESSARY to uphold the conclusion.

As you said:
Premise: Lobster legally harvested declining.
No reduction in legal lobster fishing activity, local catch was below pre-1992 level.

Conclusion: Outlaw fishing boats harvested about 9000 tons illegally last yr.
You've correctly identified the premises and conclusion. Now the next step is to ask yourself - what MUST be true for the conclusion to be true? If you're unsure, play the "what if" game - taking those premises as true, what if there's another explanation besides the one given? Could there be any other situation besides illegal harvesters harvesting the exact difference in lobsters? Had the practice of illegal harvesting changed something else about the situation?

I think HerrGrau gives a good rundown of the answer choices. I'd just like to add this - in choice E, that could be an explanation for the difference between 1992 and 1996. But it doesn't have to be true. With assumptions, you're always looking for what is NECESSARY to support that conclusion. Try the Negation Test, as HerrGrau did with A.
Ceilidh Erickson
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1