Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 20 Aug 2014, 01:09

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Researchers in South Australia estimate changes in shark

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1634
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 30

Kudos [?]: 220 [0], given: 2

GMAT Tests User
Researchers in South Australia estimate changes in shark [#permalink] New post 14 Jul 2010, 12:42
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  5% (low)

Question Stats:

37% (02:55) correct 63% (01:55) wrong based on 27 sessions
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


Get the best GMAT Prep Resources with GMAT Club Premium Membership

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Posts: 150
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 3

Re: catch per unit effort [#permalink] New post 14 Jul 2010, 21:13
Easy E
_________________

consider cudos if you like my post

SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1634
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 30

Kudos [?]: 220 [0], given: 2

GMAT Tests User
Re: catch per unit effort [#permalink] New post 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


Get the best GMAT Prep Resources with GMAT Club Premium Membership

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 09 Dec 2008
Posts: 29
Location: Vietnam
Schools: Somewhere
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 2

Re: catch per unit effort [#permalink] New post 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
Intern
avatar
Joined: 12 Jul 2010
Posts: 21
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 3

Re: catch per unit effort [#permalink] New post 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? :)

After rereading and rethink about it...

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? :lol:
BSchool Thread Master
avatar
Joined: 19 Feb 2010
Posts: 401
Followers: 19

Kudos [?]: 117 [0], given: 76

GMAT Tests User
Re: catch per unit effort [#permalink] New post 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? :)

After rereading and rethink about it...

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? :lol:


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
SVP
avatar
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1563
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 201 [0], given: 6

Re: catch per unit effort [#permalink] New post 18 Jul 2010, 18:09
I still dont understand how E weakens the conclusion. Can someone please explain this.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 12 Jul 2010
Posts: 21
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 3

Re: catch per unit effort [#permalink] New post 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
Manager
avatar
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Posts: 150
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 3

Re: catch per unit effort [#permalink] New post 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 :P
_________________

consider cudos if you like my post

Director
Director
avatar
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Affiliations: Chicago Booth Class of 2015
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 995
Followers: 13

Kudos [?]: 386 [0], given: 36

GMAT Tests User
Re: catch per unit effort [#permalink] New post 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
Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Jan 2010
Posts: 194
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 13

GMAT Tests User
Re: catch per unit effort [#permalink] New post 31 Jul 2010, 13:50
confused didn't pick any ..........
Current Student
User avatar
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: 12

Kudos [?]: 81 [0], given: 24

GMAT ToolKit User GMAT Tests User
Re: catch per unit effort [#permalink] New post 12 Sep 2010, 03:22
Still confused :?
_________________

Kidchaos

http://www.laptopskinvault.com

Follow The Laptop Skin Vault on:
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/TheLaptopSkinVault
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/LaptopSkinVault

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
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 22 Jul 2010
Posts: 138
Schools: Wharton,Insead,LBS,IMD,Kellog,Haas,Duke
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 13

Re: catch per unit effort [#permalink] New post 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
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 22 Jul 2010
Posts: 138
Schools: Wharton,Insead,LBS,IMD,Kellog,Haas,Duke
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 13

Re: catch per unit effort [#permalink] New post 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
Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Feb 2010
Posts: 143
Followers: 1

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

GMAT Tests User
Re: catch per unit effort [#permalink] New post 12 Sep 2010, 20:58
+1 for E
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 02 Apr 2010
Posts: 98
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 1

Re: catch per unit effort [#permalink] New post 12 Sep 2010, 21:34
+1 for E too!
Re: catch per unit effort   [#permalink] 12 Sep 2010, 21:34
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
6 Experts publish their posts in the topic Researchers estimate that in order to use stem cells in Slywork 11 11 Aug 2012, 00:49
Officials in Australia estimate that revenues from casinos bhatiagp 2 23 Jul 2008, 23:57
shark stevegt 6 27 Jun 2007, 20:19
Researchers in South Australia estimate changes in shark chunjuwu 9 09 Mar 2005, 00:48
Australia as the antipodes lawrence1972sg 3 26 Nov 2004, 23:00
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Researchers in South Australia estimate changes in shark

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.