Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game Auth

Expert replies

vinni.k: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 421; Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 4:27 amFollowed by: 2 members; Location: India; Thanked: 6 times; GMAT Score:620

by vinni.k » Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:46 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.

Can anyone please explain what is wrong with A. Both A and E seems to be very close to me, but I don't understand the exact reason to eliminate A. If anyone can explain in detail, that would be great..
Thanks & Regards
Vinni

Source: Beat The GMAT — Critical Reasoning | Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:46 am

MakeUrTimeCount: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 104; Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 1:25 pmFollowed by: 3 members; Thanked: 11 times

by MakeUrTimeCount » Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:04 am

The environmentalist opposed the commissioner's believe that "the resource is no longer endangered" i.e he put his points forward to conclude the reverse.

Also the paragraph does no say that the use of technology is causing increased enrochment. It just says that greater efficiency is the cause if increased fish-catch.

I hope above make sense.

vinni.k: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 421; Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 4:27 amFollowed by: 2 members; Location: India; Thanked: 6 times; GMAT Score:620

by vinni.k » Wed Dec 14, 2011 8:07 am

MakeUrTimeCount wrote:The environmentalist opposed the commissioner's believe that "the resource is no longer endangered" i.e he put his points forward to conclude the reverse.

Also the paragraph does no say that the use of technology is causing increased enrochment. It just says that greater efficiency is the cause if increased fish-catch.

I hope above make sense.

Thanks for your reply.

By posting this question, I wanted to know if I am moving in the right direction.

Regards
Vinni

GmatVerbal: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 138; Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:07 amFollowed by: 3 members; Thanked: 19 times

by GmatVerbal » Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:50 pm

Environmentalist argument: Increased numbers are due to greater efficiency in using the technologies. Doesn't mean increased encroachment?

avik.ch: Legendary Member; Posts: 641; Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:15 amFollowed by: 32 members; Thanked: 149 times; GMAT Score:760

by avik.ch » Tue Dec 20, 2011 10:48 pm

I will extend to what GmatVerbal has mentioned !!

Here the issue of "rain forest" is an analogy or in simple term "additional premise". This is a typical logical structure : where you want to bolster the conclusion with some parallel cases or example. They add no values to the theme or main point of the passages/stimulus.

So when we find the conclusion we will not see this "rain forest" issue in the answer choice --

Now I hope you got why E is the answer !!

This structure often give rise to "false analogy" - when the dynamics of the comparison do not have enough parallels then the analogy must be deemed false. This is a typical logical fallacy.

E.g : Being forced to pay higher taxes to pay for universal healthcare is unjust because it is like Mr.X being forced to the back of the bus.

I hope this helps !!

[email protected]: Legendary Member; Posts: 934; Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 5:16 amFollowed by: 14 members; Location: AAMCHI MUMBAI LOCAL; Thanked: 63 times

by [email protected] » Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:35 am

Yes avik is right...

The environmentalist is giving a counter premise by giving a parallel reasoning.

There is nothing to do with the trees and the forests.

hence E.

Hope this helped...

IT IS TIME TO BEAT THE GMAT

LEARNING, APPLICATION AND TIMING IS THE FACT OF GMAT AND LIFE AS WELL... KEEP PLAYING!!!

Whenever you feel that my post really helped you to learn something new, please press on the 'THANK' button.

GMAT Course Reviews

563 reviews

1168 reviews

431 reviews

359 reviews

147 reviews

5/5

5 Star (563 Reviews)

"Target Test Prep is the closest to the official version of the GMAT exam, about 99% accuracy in terms of the quality and quantity of information. The course has excellently created singular sets of focused lessons and tests for every possible topic that one could come across in the official GMAT exam."

"The TTP course maximizes the efficiency of the time you spend studying. It will take time and effort but I could almost guarantee that if you complete the course exactly as it is laid out you will get an amazing score. They also have a very responsive team willing to help with any questions you might have."

"TTP has two things that I think no other test prep company offers: A teaching approach that reinforces understanding and an attitude that will give you the mental preparedness needed to succeed on the test. TTP gives you a deep understanding of the concept you need to know while teaching you how to think."

Write a Review