Consumers will be hurt by the new lower ceiling on halibut catches. Given the law of supply and demand these restrictions are likely to result in an increase in the price of the fish.
Which one of the following, if assumed, would do most to justify the claim that the price of halibut will increase?
(A) The demand for halibut will not decrease substantially after the new restrictions are imposed.
(B) There is a connection between the supply of halibut and the demand for it.
(C) The lost production of halibut will not be replaced by increased production of other fish.
(D) The demand for other fish will be affected by the new restrictions.
(E) The amount of halibut consumed represents a very small proportion of all fish consumed.
Consumers
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 401
- Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 9:21 am
- Thanked: 3 times
- Followed by:1 members
Please share your idea and your reasoning
https://bmnmed.com/home/
https://nguyensinguyen.vietnam21.org
https://bmnmed.com/home/
https://nguyensinguyen.vietnam21.org
-
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 5:46 am
- Location: Philadelphia
The supply decreases while the demand stays the same or rises.Anon wrote:A
he demand for halibut will not decrease substantially after the new restrictions are imposed.
Given the law of supply and demand
- Stuart@KaplanGMAT
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 3225
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:40 pm
- Location: Toronto
- Thanked: 1710 times
- Followed by:614 members
- GMAT Score:800
Often, a good way to strengthen an argument is to eliminate weakeners.NSNguyen wrote:Consumers will be hurt by the new lower ceiling on halibut catches. Given the law of supply and demand these restrictions are likely to result in an increase in the price of the fish.
Which one of the following, if assumed, would do most to justify the claim that the price of halibut will increase?
(A) The demand for halibut will not decrease substantially after the new restrictions are imposed.
(B) There is a connection between the supply of halibut and the demand for it.
(C) The lost production of halibut will not be replaced by increased production of other fish.
(D) The demand for other fish will be affected by the new restrictions.
(E) The amount of halibut consumed represents a very small proportion of all fish consumed.
Let's use Kaplan's denial test on (A):
"It is not true that the demand for halibut will not decrease substantially after the new restrictions are imposed."
After eliminating the double negative:
"The demand for halibut WILL decrease substantially after the new restrictions are imposed."
How does this make us feel about the conclusion that price will increase? Well, if demand decreases substantially, it seems unlikely that price will increase as the author predicts. So, the denial of (A) WEAKENS the argument.
Since the denial of (A) is a weakener, the original (A) must be a strengthener: pick (A).
Stuart Kovinsky | Kaplan GMAT Faculty | Toronto
Kaplan Exclusive: The Official Test Day Experience | Ready to Take a Free Practice Test? | Kaplan/Beat the GMAT Member Discount
BTG100 for $100 off a full course
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 401
- Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 9:21 am
- Thanked: 3 times
- Followed by:1 members
The OA: A
Please share your idea and your reasoning
https://bmnmed.com/home/
https://nguyensinguyen.vietnam21.org
https://bmnmed.com/home/
https://nguyensinguyen.vietnam21.org
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 320
- Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:00 pm
- Thanked: 10 times
Stuart,Stuart Kovinsky wrote:Often, a good way to strengthen an argument is to eliminate weakeners.NSNguyen wrote:Consumers will be hurt by the new lower ceiling on halibut catches. Given the law of supply and demand these restrictions are likely to result in an increase in the price of the fish.
Which one of the following, if assumed, would do most to justify the claim that the price of halibut will increase?
(A) The demand for halibut will not decrease substantially after the new restrictions are imposed.
(B) There is a connection between the supply of halibut and the demand for it.
(C) The lost production of halibut will not be replaced by increased production of other fish.
(D) The demand for other fish will be affected by the new restrictions.
(E) The amount of halibut consumed represents a very small proportion of all fish consumed.
Let's use Kaplan's denial test on (A):
"It is not true that the demand for halibut will not decrease substantially after the new restrictions are imposed."
After eliminating the double negative:
"The demand for halibut WILL decrease substantially after the new restrictions are imposed."
How does this make us feel about the conclusion that price will increase? Well, if demand decreases substantially, it seems unlikely that price will increase as the author predicts. So, the denial of (A) WEAKENS the argument.
Since the denial of (A) is a weakener, the original (A) must be a strengthener: pick (A).
I see that C also fits into the supply demand evidence with the denial test. I thought more in terms that the reference to "fish" price in the evidence can be pertaining to prices of fish in general and that's the reason I went with C. If the "fish" in the evidence is only concerning Halibut, then my reasoning is wrong since it doesn't reallly matter if other types of fish catch increases or not. But how to make sure what this "fish" refers to and this is not a scope shift question? I'd really appreciate your response.
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 401
- Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 9:21 am
- Thanked: 3 times
- Followed by:1 members
Hi ildude02,
what will happen if the demand for halibu decreases?
what will happen if the demand for halibu decreases?
Please share your idea and your reasoning
https://bmnmed.com/home/
https://nguyensinguyen.vietnam21.org
https://bmnmed.com/home/
https://nguyensinguyen.vietnam21.org
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 320
- Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:00 pm
- Thanked: 10 times
Then the reduced supply will not affect the price. So this should be a valid assumption.NSNguyen wrote:Hi ildude02,
what will happen if the demand for halibu decreases?
But my basic question was, how would we know that we should only restrict ourselves to the halibut fish when the conclusion says "fish" without restricting it to "halibut fish" while the supporting statement with regards to the ceiling talks about "halibut" fish. So both A and C seeem like valid assumtpiosn depends on how we interpret. If someone can explain where I'm wroing with my reasoning, I would really appreciate it.
- Stuart@KaplanGMAT
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 3225
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:40 pm
- Location: Toronto
- Thanked: 1710 times
- Followed by:614 members
- GMAT Score:800
The stimulus says:reachac wrote:I agree with Ildude02, theres a clear scope shift in the stem from halibut to "fish" in general.
"Given the law of supply and demand these restrictions are likely to result in an increase in the price of the fish."
The use of the definite article "the" clearly indicates that we're talking about halibut, not all fish in general. There's no scope shift.
Stuart Kovinsky | Kaplan GMAT Faculty | Toronto
Kaplan Exclusive: The Official Test Day Experience | Ready to Take a Free Practice Test? | Kaplan/Beat the GMAT Member Discount
BTG100 for $100 off a full course
- tendays2go
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:51 am
- Location: Netherlands
- Thanked: 10 times
- GMAT Score:680
Stuart,
the last post where you helped in identifying "the" participle was really
helpful.
Thanks for the reasoning!
the last post where you helped in identifying "the" participle was really
helpful.
Thanks for the reasoning!