Researchers in South Australia estimate changes in shark : 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, 11:50

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

Researchers in South Australia estimate changes in shark

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

SVP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1628
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 42

Kudos [?]: 1057 [0], given: 2

Researchers in South Australia estimate changes in shark [#permalink]

Show Tags

14 Jul 2010, 12:42
00:00

Difficulty:

75% (hard)

Question Stats:

36% (02:48) correct 64% (01:51) wrong based on 39 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Researchers in South Australia estimate changes in shark populations inhabiting local waters by monitoring what is termed the “catch per unit effort” (CPUE). The CPUE for any species of shark is the number of those sharks that commercial shark-fishing boats catch per hour for each kilometer of gill net set out in the water. Since 1973 the CPUE for a particular species of shark has remained fairly constant. Therefore, the population of that species in the waters around South Australia must be at approximately its 1973 level.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) The waters around South Australia are the only area in the world where that particular species of shark is found.
(B) The sharks that are the most profitable to catch are those that tend to remain in the same area of ocean year after year and not migrate far from where they were born.
(C) A significant threat to shark populations, in addition to commercial shark fishing, is “incidental mortality” that results from catching sharks in nets intended for other fish.
(D) Most of the quotas designed to protect shark populations limit the tonnage of sharks that can be taken and not the number of individual sharks.
(E) Since 1980 commercial shark-fishing boats have used sophisticated electronic equipment that enables them to locate sharks with greater accuracy.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

If you have any questions
New!
Manager
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Posts: 150
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 3

Re: catch per unit effort [#permalink]

Show Tags

14 Jul 2010, 21:13
Easy E
_________________

consider cudos if you like my post

SVP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1628
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 42

Kudos [?]: 1057 [0], given: 2

Re: catch per unit effort [#permalink]

Show Tags

15 Jul 2010, 07:11
tryingharder wrote:
Easy E

What are you bringing to the table?
_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Intern
Joined: 09 Dec 2008
Posts: 28
Location: Vietnam
Schools: Somewhere
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 62 [0], given: 2

Re: catch per unit effort [#permalink]

Show Tags

17 Jul 2010, 12:21
I go for C. There is another reason that is threat to the population of shark, which is the "unaware" action of fishing. Thus, we will understate the population of shark if we just use the CPUE to estimate the level of population.

Do I miss something? Thanks
Intern
Joined: 12 Jul 2010
Posts: 21
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 3

Re: catch per unit effort [#permalink]

Show Tags

17 Jul 2010, 13:40
I went for C using a similar reasoning to dungtd's.

In my opinion, if E is true, the shark-fishing boats would be getting more sharks, elevating CPUE.

What am I missing?

The conclusion establishes a relationship between CPUE and total population of sharks.

If sharks can be detected with greater accuracy, CPUE can remain constant, even tough the total population is decreasing. Hence, E weakens the conclusion.

I think that problem with C is that this "incidental mortality" would happened all the time, before or after 1973, not affecting CPUE and/or total population.

Am I right now?
Joined: 19 Feb 2010
Posts: 401
Followers: 22

Kudos [?]: 174 [0], given: 76

Re: catch per unit effort [#permalink]

Show Tags

18 Jul 2010, 01:38
vbarrozo wrote:
I went for C using a similar reasoning to dungtd's.

In my opinion, if E is true, the shark-fishing boats would be getting more sharks, elevating CPUE.

What am I missing?

The conclusion establishes a relationship between CPUE and total population of sharks.

If sharks can be detected with greater accuracy, CPUE can remain constant, even tough the total population is decreasing. Hence, E weakens the conclusion.

I think that problem with C is that this "incidental mortality" would happened all the time, before or after 1973, not affecting CPUE and/or total population.

Am I right now?

Yes you are. I like your reasoning.
Just wanted to note that the "incidental mortality" would not affect CPUE but it definitely will affect total population. Unless you use it as a percentage comparing before and after 1973. In that case, the researchers would know that they need to deduct the incidental mortality from the CPUE measurements.
SVP
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1558
Followers: 19

Kudos [?]: 577 [0], given: 6

Re: catch per unit effort [#permalink]

Show Tags

18 Jul 2010, 18:09
I still dont understand how E weakens the conclusion. Can someone please explain this.
Intern
Joined: 12 Jul 2010
Posts: 21
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 3

Re: catch per unit effort [#permalink]

Show Tags

18 Jul 2010, 18:57
seekmba wrote:
I still dont understand how E weakens the conclusion. Can someone please explain this.

Hi, seekmba!

Let me try to explain it according to my point of view:

The conclusion says: if CPUE remains constant, the total population of sharks must be also "constant" (or, in other words, it didn't change during the period from 1973 to current time).

IMHO, answer E weakens the conclusion because it present a more efficient way to find sharks. Taking this in consideration, we can assume that shark-fishing boats are able to catch the same amount of sharks (CPUE constant), even if total population of sharks is smaller than before 1973. Therefore, answer E presents an argument that "breaks" the conclusion CPUE constant = Total population constant.
Manager
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Posts: 150
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 3

Re: catch per unit effort [#permalink]

Show Tags

18 Jul 2010, 22:02
noboru wrote:
tryingharder wrote:
Easy E

What are you bringing to the table?

since 1973 the CPUE for a particular species of shark has remained fairly constant(premise). given this it can be concluded that population of sharks in the waters around South Australia must be at approximately its 1973 level. the argument states that.

But will the shark population remain constant at 1973 level ??given that since 1980 commercial shark-fishing boats have used sophisticated electronic equipment that enables them to locate sharks with greater accuracy.

E is a detracting piece of evidence..whn introduced will weaken the con

hope this helps
_________________

consider cudos if you like my post

Director
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Affiliations: University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 997
Location: Singapore
Followers: 22

Kudos [?]: 747 [0], given: 36

Re: catch per unit effort [#permalink]

Show Tags

19 Jul 2010, 02:29
Conclusion: Because the catch (CPUE) is constant so the shark population is not dwindling. This is causal statement.

This can be destroyed if there is a third factor "dwindling" the population. "sophisticated EE" are Third factor (alternative explanation)
(E) Since 1980 commercial shark-fishing boats have used sophisticated electronic equipment that enables them to locate sharks with greater accuracy.
_________________

Please press kudos if you like my post.

Manager
Joined: 08 Jan 2010
Posts: 194
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 13

Re: catch per unit effort [#permalink]

Show Tags

31 Jul 2010, 13:50
confused didn't pick any ..........
Senior Manager
Affiliations: Volunteer Operation Smile India, Creative Head of College IEEE branch (2009-10), Chief Editor College Magazine (2009), Finance Head College Magazine (2008)
Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 471
Location: India
WE2: Entrepreneur (E-commerce - The Laptop Skin Vault)
Concentration: Marketing, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
WE: Marketing (Other)
Followers: 13

Kudos [?]: 145 [0], given: 24

Re: catch per unit effort [#permalink]

Show Tags

12 Sep 2010, 03:22
Still confused
_________________

Kidchaos

http://www.laptopskinvault.com

Follow The Laptop Skin Vault on:

Consider Kudos if you think the Post is good
Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot. Nothing is going to change. It's not. - Dr. Seuss

Manager
Joined: 22 Jul 2010
Posts: 138
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 13

Re: catch per unit effort [#permalink]

Show Tags

12 Sep 2010, 07:27
If sharks can be detected with greater accuracy, CPUE can remain constant, even tough the total population is decreasing. Hence, E weakens the conclusion.

I think you are taking this in reverse manner....:D

What if they detect and hunt few and in the mean time of year or so some of sharks migrated from somewhere and add to the lot!!!!!!!!!

The CPUE will once again detect and count might be more or less constant....

personal views ...:D
_________________

Whatever you do, Do it SINCERELY!!!

GOD help those who help themselves....

Manager
Joined: 22 Jul 2010
Posts: 138
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 13

Re: catch per unit effort [#permalink]

Show Tags

12 Sep 2010, 07:32
kidchaos wrote:
Still confused

am agree with thinkharder...

WE HAVE TO C THE OPTION WHICH WEAKENS THE CONLUSION............:p
_________________

Whatever you do, Do it SINCERELY!!!

GOD help those who help themselves....

Manager
Joined: 08 Feb 2010
Posts: 143
Followers: 1

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

Re: catch per unit effort [#permalink]

Show Tags

12 Sep 2010, 20:58
+1 for E
Manager
Joined: 02 Apr 2010
Posts: 98
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 1

Re: catch per unit effort [#permalink]

Show Tags

12 Sep 2010, 21:34
+1 for E too!
Re: catch per unit effort   [#permalink] 12 Sep 2010, 21:34
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
6 Commercial shark fishing and shark hunting will resume in Diamond Bay 12 12 Oct 2015, 10:54
Tiger sharks are common in the waters surrounding 6 27 Nov 2014, 20:38
12 After the recent court rulings, commercial shark fishing and 13 23 Jul 2014, 16:06
17 Tiger sharks are common in the waters surrounding Tenare 14 14 Jul 2012, 15:43
15 Tiger sharks are common in the waters surrounding Tenare 9 03 Sep 2007, 02:28
Display posts from previous: Sort by