Oh Fish !!

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 777
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:02 am
Location: Mumbai, India
Thanked: 117 times
Followed by:47 members

Oh Fish !!

by komal » Tue Feb 09, 2010 7:39 pm
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.

(8) 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.

OA [spoiler](E)
[/spoiler]
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 748
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:54 am
Thanked: 46 times
Followed by:3 members

by outreach » Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:32 pm
environmentalist is trying to refute the argument of the commissioner. The commissioner says that fish is not endangered as the number of fish caugh has icreased. But the environementalist gives a different reason for the increase in catch
a) the question here is whether fish is endangered or not
b) out of scope. it is indirectly supporting technology of fish detectin but does not mention if fish is endangered
c) out of scope.
d) the question here is whether fish is endangered or not.
e) correct