CR050107--fishing industry : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 19 Jan 2017, 18:51

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# CR050107--fishing industry

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1218
Location: Taiwan
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 607 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

24 Mar 2005, 23:40
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

The fishing industry cannot currently be relied upon to help the government count the seabirds killed by net fishing, since an accurate count might result in restriction of net fishing. The government should therefore institute a program under which tissue samples from the dead birds are examined to determine the amount of toxins in the fish eaten by the birds. The industry would then have a reason to turn in the bird carcasses, since the industry needs to know whether the fish it catches are contaminated with toxins.

1 Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) The seabirds that are killed by net fishing do not eat all of the species of fish caught by the fishing industry.

(B) The government has not in the past sought to determine whether fish were contaminated with toxins by examining tissue samples of seabirds.

(C) The government cannot gain an accurate count of the number of seabirds killed by net fishing unless the fishing industry cooperates.

(D) If the government knew that fish caught by the fishing industry were contaminated by toxins, the government would restrict net fishing.

(E) If net fishing were restricted by the government, then the fishing industry would become more inclined to reveal the number of seabirds killed by net fishing.

_________________________________________________________

2 Which one of the following, if true, most strongly indicates that the government program would not by itself provide an accurate count of the seabirds killed by net fishing?

(A) The seabirds killed by net fishing might be contaminated with several different toxins even if the birds eat only one kind of fish.

(B) The fishing industry could learn whether the fish it catches are contaminated with toxins if only a few of the seabirds killed by the nets were examined.

(C) The government could gain valuable information about the source of toxins by examining tissue samples of the seabirds caught in the nets.

(D) The fish caught in a particular net might be contaminated with the same toxins as those in the seabirds caught in that net.

(E) The government would be willing to certify that the fish caught by the industry are not contaminated with toxins if tests done on the seabirds showed no contamination.
If you have any questions
New!
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5062
Location: Singapore
Followers: 30

Kudos [?]: 358 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Mar 2005, 00:12
1 Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(E) If net fishing were restricted by the government, then the fishing industry would become more inclined to reveal the number of seabirds killed by net fishing.
- The industry obviously doesn't want a restriction on net fishing. So in order to aviod this, they will turn in the carcasses of the birds so that the governement can ascertain the number of seabirds killed by net fishing.

_________________________________________________________

2 Which one of the following, if true, most strongly indicates that the government program would not by itself provide an accurate count of the seabirds killed by net fishing?

(A) The seabirds killed by net fishing might be contaminated with several different toxins even if the birds eat only one kind of fish.
- If so, then the progam of identifying whether the birds are killed by net fishing would not be successful since the birds might carry toxins from other sources and thus muddle up the results of the tests.
VP
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 1488
Location: Germany
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 327 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Mar 2005, 06:55
D) and A) will explain if correct...
VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1218
Location: Taiwan
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 607 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 Mar 2005, 02:59
OA is C, B.

any explanation?
Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Sep 2004
Posts: 369
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

28 Mar 2005, 05:54
For first question How come the OA is C?
Any explanation ?

Kindly Help!
Saurabh Malpani
SVP
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2243
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 325 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

28 Mar 2005, 09:58
Fact: Fish industry does not want to turn in birds that are killed by net fishing, because they don't want the government to restrict net fishing. Therefore the government would not get an accurate account of birds killed by net fishing.
Premise: If government want the birds for other reasons that also interest the industry then the industry would turn in the birds.
Conclusion: The government should use examining toxication of birds as an excuse to get an accurate count of birds killed by net fishing.

(C) The government cannot gain an accurate count of the number of seabirds killed by net fishing unless the fishing industry cooperates.
If the government have other ways to get an accurate count of the number of birds killed by net fishing then the government doesn't need to induce the industry to turn in the dead birds by instituting the toxication programs.

(B) The fishing industry could learn whether the fish it catches are contaminated with toxins if only a few of the seabirds killed by the nets were examined.
The point is to induce them to hand in all dead birds. If they know that you don't need to turn in all birds for the toxication examination then they would not turn all dead birds in and therefore the government will not get an accurate count of the dead birds.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5062
Location: Singapore
Followers: 30

Kudos [?]: 358 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

28 Mar 2005, 22:51
ah, I understand it now. I was confused by the passage when i read it initially. It was clear until it suddenly went into toxication.
VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1218
Location: Taiwan
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 607 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

29 Mar 2005, 00:58
ywilfred wrote:
ah, I understand it now. I was confused by the passage when i read it initially. It was clear until it suddenly went into toxication.

Hi, in quesion 1, I found choice E seems OK as well.

How to refute E?
Thanks
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5062
Location: Singapore
Followers: 30

Kudos [?]: 358 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

29 Mar 2005, 09:29
chunjuwu wrote:
ywilfred wrote:
ah, I understand it now. I was confused by the passage when i read it initially. It was clear until it suddenly went into toxication.

Hi, in quesion 1, I found choice E seems OK as well.

How to refute E?
Thanks

Hi Chunjuwu,

It doesn't strenthen the argument because in the passage, we're told the government has to 'trick' the fisherman into releasing the birds on the pretext of checking them for toxification. Now E says there's another way to get them to release the seabirds. In that way, the argument isn't being strengthend.
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2004
Posts: 458
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 88 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

29 Mar 2005, 09:58
chunjuwu wrote:
(D) If the government knew that fish caught by the fishing industry were contaminated by toxins, the government would restrict net fishing.

would someone tell me why D is wrong for first question? My understanding is because government will restrict netfishing if it finds out fish caught are contaminated by toxins, the fishing industry will find a way to prove that fish cought are not contaminated. To achieve this goal, the fishing industry can turn in these dead seabirds to be examined.
SVP
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2243
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 325 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

29 Mar 2005, 10:30
We want them to have an incentive to turn in the bird bodies. Now if the gov will restrict net fishing in the case if dead bird were found intoxinated, then do you think they would still have the incentive to turn in the bird bodies? No. Therefore this does not strengthen the argument that the intoxinating program will provide an incentive for the industry to turn in the bird bodies.
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2004
Posts: 458
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 88 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

29 Mar 2005, 11:42
HongHu wrote:
We want them to have an incentive to turn in the bird bodies. Now if the gov will restrict net fishing in the case if dead bird were found intoxinated, then do you think they would still have the incentive to turn in the bird bodies? No. Therefore this does not strengthen the argument that the intoxinating program will provide an incentive for the industry to turn in the bird bodies.

Thanks Honghu. I only considered the positive impact but forgot to take negative effect into account.
VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1218
Location: Taiwan
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 607 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

31 Mar 2005, 08:45
ywilfred, HongHu,

thank you.

I got it now. It's really hard.
31 Mar 2005, 08:45
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Automobile Industry 0 02 Aug 2014, 01:41
3 The fishing industry 4 04 Nov 2010, 23:04
2 Industrialized nations 7 07 Jul 2010, 12:42
CR - ocean-freight industry 9 21 Mar 2010, 18:54
CR-Industrial accidents 16 25 Apr 2007, 09:16
Display posts from previous: Sort by