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

Redeem

Marine Fish

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 11:48 pm
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:1 members

Marine Fish

by amirhakimi » Sat Nov 16, 2013 5:25 am
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
Sincerely,
Amir,

The only place that "Success" comes before "Trying" is in the dictionary!
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 11:48 pm
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:1 members

by amirhakimi » Sat Nov 16, 2013 5:33 am
Here is how I deal with this problem:

Answer choice A uses heaving wording while pointing at technology - OUT!
Answer choice B is not mentioned in the argument - OUT!
Answer choice C is not mentioned in the argument - OUT!
Answer choice D uses heaving wording while pointing at technology - OUT!
Answer choice E is the only thing that has to be true based on the argument.

Avoid extreme and heavy assumptions that are not supported within the argument. This simple rule is the key to solve majority of Inference questions.
Sincerely,
Amir,

The only place that "Success" comes before "Trying" is in the dictionary!
Top
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 12:32 pm
Location: Orange, TX
Thanked: 66 times
Followed by:4 members
GMAT Score:760

by ilyana » Mon Nov 18, 2013 11:29 am
There is a conclusion already in the text of the problem itself. We just have to reword it a little to get the correct answer.

Let's analyze the argument. We have:
1) a fact that the number of fish caught increased
2) an argument (=reasoning) of the commissioner of the Fish and Game Authority
3) a claim that the conclusion of the commissioner's argument isn't sound
4) an analogy with the rain forests that supports the claim
5) an alternative explanation of the fact at hand (that fish-catch increased), which also supports the claim

Let's look closer at the claim so supported by an environmentalist. It is in fact the conclusion we're looking for. He says, "This is a specious argument", referring to the commissioner's argument.
What was the conclusion of that argument? - the commissioner claims that the number of fish caught demonstrates that this source is no longer endangered. So, fish are no longer endangered.
And the environmentalist claims that this is not true. Basically, he says that fish ARE in danger, which coincides with the answer choice E.
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1