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

Redeem

Consumers

Expert replies
by NSNguyen » Thu Jul 03, 2008 7:49 am
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.
Please share your idea and your reasoning :D
https://bmnmed.com/home/
https://nguyensinguyen.vietnam21.org
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by Anon » Thu Jul 03, 2008 8:21 am
A

he demand for halibut will not decrease substantially after the new restrictions are imposed.


Given the law of supply and demand
Join the discussion

by jslavi01 » Thu Jul 03, 2008 9:26 am
Anon wrote:A

he demand for halibut will not decrease substantially after the new restrictions are imposed.


Given the law of supply and demand
The supply decreases while the demand stays the same or rises.
Join the discussion

by pranavc » Thu Jul 03, 2008 7:27 pm
What is the OA?
Join the discussion

by raunekk » Thu Jul 03, 2008 9:57 pm
It took time to understand the question itself :o

IMO: B

Or i guess i hav not understood the question yet :wink:


OA??
Join the discussion

Re: Consumers

by Stuart@KaplanGMAT » Fri Jul 04, 2008 10:56 am
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.
Often, a good way to strengthen an argument is to eliminate weakeners.

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).
Image

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
Join the discussion

by NSNguyen » Sat Jul 05, 2008 10:57 pm
The OA: A
Please share your idea and your reasoning :D
https://bmnmed.com/home/
https://nguyensinguyen.vietnam21.org
Join the discussion

Re: Consumers

by ildude02 » Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:58 pm
Stuart Kovinsky wrote:
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.
Often, a good way to strengthen an argument is to eliminate weakeners.

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,
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.
Join the discussion

by NSNguyen » Sat Jul 26, 2008 8:28 am
Hi ildude02,
what will happen if the demand for halibu decreases?
Please share your idea and your reasoning :D
https://bmnmed.com/home/
https://nguyensinguyen.vietnam21.org
Join the discussion

by ildude02 » Sat Jul 26, 2008 9:21 am
NSNguyen wrote:Hi ildude02,
what will happen if the demand for halibu decreases?
Then the reduced supply will not affect the price. So this should be a valid assumption.

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.
Join the discussion

by reachac » Sat Jul 26, 2008 9:05 pm
I agree with Ildude02, theres a clear scope shift in the stem from halibut to "fish" in general.
Join the discussion

by Stuart@KaplanGMAT » Tue Jul 29, 2008 12:01 pm
reachac wrote:I agree with Ildude02, theres a clear scope shift in the stem from halibut to "fish" in general.
The stimulus says:

"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.
Image

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
Join the discussion

by anky666 » Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:52 pm
Stuart,

In A-- what if supply of fish remains same? Then price will not increase? I think B is better option.

Please advise.
Join the discussion

by tendays2go » Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:44 am
Stuart,
the last post where you helped in identifying "the" participle was really
helpful.
Thanks for the reasoning!
Join the discussion

by Jatinder » Sat Jun 20, 2009 4:29 am
Hi Stuart/Ron/Jose

Can you please specify the valid reason of eliminating B.

Thanks
Last edited by Jatinder on Sun Jun 21, 2009 5:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Keep flying
Join the discussion