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.

I'll go with E

IMO A

A says tourists unwilling to see mantees.. there by former hunters wont have as much work as it was expected.. Hence they will have to resort to killing mantees again for livelihood.

I will go with A as well

Though I am confused between choices (B) and (E). However, (B) seems more promising to me because it states that after sometimes, again the hunting will be boosted. However, (E) just state that hunters do need to make more trips but it never said that whether hunters are interested in it or not. So (E) put the statement in the state dilemma which can either weak or strong the conclusion.

IMO: (B).

What is OA?

amitabhprasad wrote:I will go with A as well

Option (A) challenges the fact that Tourist interest is high. Hence, (A) can never be the right answer.

Remember: In CR's weaking questions, we are not suppose to challenge the facts.

I'll go with A.

A is not challenging the fact; In CR in weakening questions the choices are to be considrere as true. so if tourists are not willing to pay for boat rides to see mantee then the hunters will have to go back to their hunting profession and hence the plan will not work.

What's the OA?

codesnooker wrote:Though I am confused between choices (B) and (E). However, (B) seems more promising to me because it states that after sometimes, again the hunting will be boosted. However, (E) just state that hunters do need to make more trips but it never said that whether hunters are interested in it or not. So (E) put the statement in the state dilemma which can either weak or strong the conclusion.

that is true, i was also shaky b/w B and E since the premise of the conclusion is based on two things: endangered mammal and taking tourists on boat rides - so we need to attack on one of these or both to fail the plan. That is how I chose E - but B can very well be the right answer.

Not much difference b/w A & E ...

could be fall on trap on D-day

I am going with A. What is the OA?

codesnooker wrote:Though I am confused between choices (B) and (E). However, (B) seems more promising to me because it states that after sometimes, again the hunting will be boosted. However, (E) just state that hunters do need to make more trips but it never said that whether hunters are interested in it or not. So (E) put the statement in the state dilemma which can either weak or strong the conclusion.

IMO: (B).

What is OA?

B. Recovery of the species would enable some hunting to continue without putting the manatees’ survival in jeopardy again.

If it enables only some hunting then what are the rest of the hunters going 2 do ?

Vignesh.4384 wrote:

codesnooker wrote:Though I am confused between choices (B) and (E). However, (B) seems more promising to me because it states that after sometimes, again the hunting will be boosted. However, (E) just state that hunters do need to make more trips but it never said that whether hunters are interested in it or not. So (E) put the statement in the state dilemma which can either weak or strong the conclusion.

IMO: (B).

What is OA?

B. Recovery of the species would enable some hunting to continue without putting the manatees’ survival in jeopardy again.

If it enables only some hunting then what are the rest of the hunters going 2 do ?

LOL

It's not some that makes this option incorrect. It's without that makes the option incorrect.

Read the option (B) again.

I think now (E) is the option left to with we can go. However, real-question poster need to provide the right OA to verify the answer.

youcan wrote:Not much difference b/w A & E ...

could be fall on trap on D-day

I dont think E is so hard to eliminate.
You can never be sure the plan wil fail.

What if the hunters are good hearted and dont mind far larger boats and make many more trips ?? the passage does not comment about this so we cant say anything about option E

codesnooker wrote:

Vignesh.4384 wrote:

codesnooker wrote:Though I am confused between choices (B) and (E). However, (B) seems more promising to me because it states that after sometimes, again the hunting will be boosted. However, (E) just state that hunters do need to make more trips but it never said that whether hunters are interested in it or not. So (E) put the statement in the state dilemma which can either weak or strong the conclusion.

IMO: (B).

What is OA?

B. Recovery of the species would enable some hunting to continue without putting the manatees’ survival in jeopardy again.

If it enables only some hunting then what are the rest of the hunters going 2 do ?

LOL

It's not some that makes this option incorrect. It's without that makes the option incorrect.

Read the option (B) again.

I think now (E) is the option left to with we can go. However, real-question poster need to provide the right OA to verify the answer.

If there are 100 hunters now engaged in hunting those creatures
and what if recovery of the species wil will allow 20 out of the 100 hunters (some) to hunt without putting them in jeopardy again?

I think Some is most important word there and obviously Without is equally important

Vignesh.4384 wrote:
If there are 100 hunters now engaged in hunting those creatures
and what if recovery of the species wil will allow 20 out of the 100 hunters (some) to hunt without putting them in jeopardy again?

I think Some is most important word there

I don't think so. They can even use ALL in the option (B) instead of SOME, then also (B) would be incorrect because it uses WITHOUT.

If again starting of hunting or no hunting does not jeopardies the conclusion then it means again starting of hunting does not matters irrespective of its level.