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.

Answer:E

[email protected] 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.

Answer:E

E is absolutely correct. If manatee hunters need to earn their current income and they need to use larger boats, they will definitely not accept the offer. Even if we consider, that they are provided with larger boats, then why will they go for many more trips when they are earning the same amount by going for less trips.

I found A very tempting though.

A and E are the close ones.
A is abstract in the sense that it doesn't mention exactly how many tourists aren't interested considering that the passage says that tourist interest is high.

E stands a clear winner.

riteshbindal wrote:

[email protected] 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.

Answer:E

E is absolutely correct. If manatee hunters need to earn their current income and they need to use larger boats, they will definitely not accept the offer. Even if we consider, that they are provided with larger boats, then why will they go for many more trips when they are earning the same amount by going for less trips.

I found A very tempting though.

Some1 please explain why E ..is right ????

I fell for a but here are some reasons why a is wrong
tourist interest is high. So tourists might still pay less and see
the flaw must attack both goals only e does it

NO one analyzed A enough to disqualify it. First many can be all. Second, negating A will clearly strengthen the conclusion. Third, Hunters can compensate the cost of larger boats and more trips by charging tourists; there is nothing in the passage to indicate this will not happen.

But, I think A is very obvious answer choice to be correct, any 5 years old will choose, so it must not be the choice. BUt, why ?


Any experts ????

A is tempting. But Answer is E

Question: Weaken the statement about double benefits 1. helping hunters maintain their current income 2. helping manate;'s survival

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.

1. larger boats , fragile areas where manate species live => larger boats could effect their survival since the areas where manate live are fragile. Weakened
2. (Cause and effect here) when the manate species is hurt by these larger boats and more number of trips, their population could reduce and hence it would effect boat riders' (hunters) income in future due to manate's extinction.

A is wrong:

Because it only talks about $ that tourists are willing to pay... no mention of manatees... and its threat of extinction.

E: touches both the issues.. and the plan is abt $ and threat of extinction.

raghavakumar85 wrote:A is tempting. But Answer is E

Question: Weaken the statement about double benefits 1. helping hunters maintain their current income 2. helping manate;'s survival

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.

1. larger boats , fragile areas where manate species live => larger boats could effect their survival since the areas where manate live are fragile. Weakened
2. (Cause and effect here) when the manate species is hurt by these larger boats and more number of trips, their population could reduce and hence it would effect boat riders' (hunters) income in future due to manate's extinction.

RK, superb explanation !!! thanks man!

The official answer is E. But I don't understand why? Can anyone explain