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.

IMO E,
if the hunters have to use a larger boat and make many more trips, then its not a good idea for them

geet wrote: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.

IMO E. Only E makes sense. The rest are out of scope to me.

I would go with A as it undoubtedly weakens the conclusion of the argument. If tourists are not ready to pay board fares charged by former manatee hunters, these hunters won’t earn required rate of return and will again switch to hunting

I guess you haven't seen this discussion a couple of weeks ago.

https://www.beatthegmat.com/endanger-species-t40518.html

It seems to me that the right answer is A