GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 21 Jan 2019, 12:59

### 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 January
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
303112345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829303112
Open Detailed Calendar
• ### GMAT Club Tests are Free & Open for Martin Luther King Jr.'s Birthday!

January 21, 2019

January 21, 2019

10:00 PM PST

11:00 PM PST

Mark your calendars - All GMAT Club Tests are free and open January 21st for celebrate Martin Luther King Jr.'s Birthday.
• ### The winners of the GMAT game show

January 22, 2019

January 22, 2019

10:00 PM PST

11:00 PM PST

In case you didn’t notice, we recently held the 1st ever GMAT game show and it was awesome! See who won a full GMAT course, and register to the next one.

# After a number of migrant fishermen at the Rotunda Beach

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Posts: 715
Concentration: General Management, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 680 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.7
WE: Information Technology (Investment Banking)
After a number of migrant fishermen at the Rotunda Beach  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 26 Dec 2018, 14:06
7
14
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

25% (01:46) correct 75% (01:43) wrong based on 1258 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

After a number of migrant fishermen at the Rotunda Beach pier got sick from consuming locally fished hermit crabs, the Rotunda Beach city authorities posted signs cautioning against the consumption of the crabs. Tests revealed that the crabs were high in prestic acid, a dangerous chemical. But a marked decline in the number of goldfish found by the beach has led to the removal of the warning signs.

Which of the following, if true, would best explain the removal of the signs?

(A) Goldfish found off Rotunda Beach cause hermit crabs to excrete prestic acid.
(B) The amount of prestic acid produced by an individual goldfish has a direct positive correlation with the density of the goldfish population in that goldfish’s immediate vicinity.
(C) Goldfish consume various parasites that often contain prestic acid.
(D) Rotunda Beach is notoriously polluted.
(E) Goldfish would not be able to inhabit the waters off Rotunda Beach if those waters were not saturated with a precise mixture of acids, including prestic acid.

Source: Veri Prep

Originally posted by TGC on 20 Jan 2013, 23:07.
Last edited by Gladiator59 on 26 Dec 2018, 14:06, edited 1 time in total.
formatted post
Director
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Posts: 715
Concentration: General Management, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 680 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.7
WE: Information Technology (Investment Banking)
Re: After a number of migrant fishermen at the Rotunda Beach  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Jan 2013, 21:21
13
1
After a number of migrant fishermen at the Rotunda Beach pier got sick from consuming locally fished hermit crabs, the Rotunda Beach city authorities posted signs cautioning against the consumption of the crabs. Tests revealed that the crabs were high in prestic acid, a dangerous chemical. But a marked decline in the number of goldfish found by the beach has led to the removal of the warning signs.

Premise: High prestic Acid in Hermit crab =>People got sick => Caution signs against Hermit Crabs
Conclusion: Decline in GF => Removal of signs.

Now how does conclusion is linked with premise in the stimulus , is what we have to answer .Because conclusion mentions GF and premise mentions HC.So there must be some relation between GF and prestic acid.

Which of the following, if true, would best explain the removal of the signs?

Goldfish found off Rotunda Beach cause hermit crabs to excrete prestic acid.
This shows that signs shouldn't be removed because GF decline =>HC will less excrete prestic acid => People Sick
The amount of prestic acid produced by an individual goldfish has a direct positive correlation with the density of the goldfish population in that goldfish’s immediate vicinity.
If Density of GF directly proportional to the Prestic acid , the according to conclusion
GF decline => Density of GF declines => Less Prestic acid => HC safe =>People will not get sick => Removal of signs.

Goldfish consume various parasites that often contain prestic acid.
Out of scope, we talking about Acid not parasites
Rotunda Beach is notoriously polluted.
Out of scope
Goldfish would not be able to inhabit the waters off Rotunda Beach if those waters were not saturated with a precise mixture of acids, including prestic acid.
Not related to argument

Hope it helps !!!
##### General Discussion
Manager
Status: Final Lap
Joined: 25 Oct 2012
Posts: 233
Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.54
WE: Project Management (Retail Banking)
Re: After a number of migrant fishermen at the Rotunda Beach  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Jan 2013, 07:08
targetgmatchotu wrote:
After a number of migrant fishermen at the Rotunda Beach pier got sick from consuming locally fished hermit crabs, the Rotunda Beach city authorities posted signs cautioning against the consumption of the crabs. Tests revealed that the crabs were high in prestic acid, a dangerous chemical. But a marked decline in the number of goldfish found by the beach has led to the removal of the warning signs.

Which of the following, if true, would best explain the removal of the signs?

Goldfish found off Rotunda Beach cause hermit crabs to excrete prestic acid.
The amount of prestic acid produced by an individual goldfish has a direct positive correlation with the density of the goldfish population in that goldfish’s immediate vicinity.
Goldfish consume various parasites that often contain prestic acid.
Rotunda Beach is notoriously polluted.
Goldfish would not be able to inhabit the waters off Rotunda Beach if those waters were not saturated with a precise mixture of acids, including prestic acid.
Source: Veri Prep

Nice question !!!
my choices were narrowed down to A and B. i can't figure out which one is correct ?!
_________________

KUDOS is the good manner to help the entire community.

Intern
Status: Dedicates 2013 to MBA !!
Joined: 06 Jul 2012
Posts: 38
Location: United States (MI)
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, General Management
GPA: 3.8
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: After a number of migrant fishermen at the Rotunda Beach  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Jan 2013, 13:23
I'm not shy to say that I quite did not understand this one. Experts please !!
_________________

Thanks and Regards,
Charu Kapoor

Never Never Never GIVE UP !!

Manager
Joined: 31 May 2012
Posts: 112
Re: After a number of migrant fishermen at the Rotunda Beach  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Jan 2013, 20:14
IMO: A
Premise 1: Eating the hermit crabs, fishermen got sick. So, Authorities displayed warning sign to forbid from eating crabs.
Premise 2: Crabs were acidic chemical prestic acid.
Conclusion: Authorities removed warning signal knowing decline in the goldfish population.

A) Goldfish found off Rotunda Beach cause hermit crabs to excrete prestic acid. Fishermen got sick by eating crab, whose excreta was acidic because of presence of goldfish around. Its good correlation. Now, As goldfish population has declined, it's correct to assume, crabs will not excrete prestic acid.
B) The amount of prestic acid produced by an individual goldfish has a direct positive correlation with the density of the goldfish population in that goldfish’s immediate vicinity. Prestic acid is proportional to goldfish population? then why fishermen felt sick by eating crab. They didn't eat goldfish. Wrong. No correlation with hermit crabs.
C) Goldfish consume various parasites that often contain prestic acid. Same error as B.
D) Rotunda Beach is notoriously polluted. Out of scope. Pollution has no interrelation with crabs and fishes.
E) Goldfish would not be able to inhabit the waters off Rotunda Beach if those waters were not saturated with a precise mixture of acids, including prestic acid. Same error as B,C

I am not convinced with OA. Can anyone please put light on this ?
Intern
Joined: 29 Jun 2014
Posts: 2
Re: After a number of migrant fishermen at the Rotunda Beach  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Jul 2014, 06:46
TGC wrote:
After a number of migrant fishermen at the Rotunda Beach pier got sick from consuming locally fished hermit crabs, the Rotunda Beach city authorities posted signs cautioning against the consumption of the crabs. Tests revealed that the crabs were high in prestic acid, a dangerous chemical. But a marked decline in the number of goldfish found by the beach has led to the removal of the warning signs.

Premise: High prestic Acid in Hermit crab =>People got sick => Caution signs against Hermit Crabs
Conclusion: Decline in GF => Removal of signs.

Now how does conclusion is linked with premise in the stimulus , is what we have to answer .Because conclusion mentions GF and premise mentions HC.So there must be some relation between GF and prestic acid.

Which of the following, if true, would best explain the removal of the signs?

Goldfish found off Rotunda Beach cause hermit crabs to excrete prestic acid.
This shows that signs shouldn't be removed because GF decline =>HC will less excrete prestic acid => People Sick
The amount of prestic acid produced by an individual goldfish has a direct positive correlation with the density of the goldfish population in that goldfish’s immediate vicinity.
If Density of GF directly proportional to the Prestic acid , the according to conclusion
GF decline => Density of GF declines => Less Prestic acid => HC safe =>People will not get sick => Removal of signs.

Goldfish consume various parasites that often contain prestic acid.
Out of scope, we talking about Acid not parasites
Rotunda Beach is notoriously polluted.
Out of scope
Goldfish would not be able to inhabit the waters off Rotunda Beach if those waters were not saturated with a precise mixture of acids, including prestic acid.
Not related to argument

Hope it helps !!!

Why are A and B different?
Less prestic acid => HC safe? No. Less prestic acid => HC will less excrete prestic acid. Just like your reasoning in A. So which one is correct?
Manager
Joined: 28 Apr 2014
Posts: 212
Re: After a number of migrant fishermen at the Rotunda Beach  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Jul 2014, 22:54
umeshpatil wrote:
IMO: A
Premise 1: Eating the hermit crabs, fishermen got sick. So, Authorities displayed warning sign to forbid from eating crabs.
Premise 2: Crabs were acidic chemical prestic acid.
Conclusion: Authorities removed warning signal knowing decline in the goldfish population.

A) Goldfish found off Rotunda Beach cause hermit crabs to excrete prestic acid. Fishermen got sick by eating crab, whose excreta was acidic because of presence of goldfish around. Its good correlation. Now, As goldfish population has declined, it's correct to assume, crabs will not excrete prestic acid.
B) The amount of prestic acid produced by an individual goldfish has a direct positive correlation with the density of the goldfish population in that goldfish’s immediate vicinity. Prestic acid is proportional to goldfish population? then why fishermen felt sick by eating crab. They didn't eat goldfish. Wrong. No correlation with hermit crabs.
C) Goldfish consume various parasites that often contain prestic acid. Same error as B.
D) Rotunda Beach is notoriously polluted. Out of scope. Pollution has no interrelation with crabs and fishes.
E) Goldfish would not be able to inhabit the waters off Rotunda Beach if those waters were not saturated with a precise mixture of acids, including prestic acid. Same error as B,C

I am not convinced with OA. Can anyone please put light on this ?

I agree with your point. How is B in anyway related to crabs
Intern
Joined: 09 Jan 2014
Posts: 15
GMAT Date: 05-28-2015
GPA: 3.48
Re: After a number of migrant fishermen at the Rotunda Beach  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Aug 2014, 10:59
1
himanshujovi wrote:
umeshpatil wrote:
IMO: A
Premise 1: Eating the hermit crabs, fishermen got sick. So, Authorities displayed warning sign to forbid from eating crabs.
Premise 2: Crabs were acidic chemical prestic acid.
Conclusion: Authorities removed warning signal knowing decline in the goldfish population.

A) Goldfish found off Rotunda Beach cause hermit crabs to excrete prestic acid. Fishermen got sick by eating crab, whose excreta was acidic because of presence of goldfish around. Its good correlation. Now, As goldfish population has declined, it's correct to assume, crabs will not excrete prestic acid.
B) The amount of prestic acid produced by an individual goldfish has a direct positive correlation with the density of the goldfish population in that goldfish’s immediate vicinity. Prestic acid is proportional to goldfish population? then why fishermen felt sick by eating crab. They didn't eat goldfish. Wrong. No correlation with hermit crabs.
C) Goldfish consume various parasites that often contain prestic acid. Same error as B.
D) Rotunda Beach is notoriously polluted. Out of scope. Pollution has no interrelation with crabs and fishes.
E) Goldfish would not be able to inhabit the waters off Rotunda Beach if those waters were not saturated with a precise mixture of acids, including prestic acid. Same error as B,C

I am not convinced with OA. Can anyone please put light on this ?

I agree with your point. How is B in anyway related to crabs

First of all lets see why A is incorrect. According to this statement, more goldfish => more excretion of prestic acid(ie less retention). Thus if goldfish population declines retention of prestic acid in hermit crabs will increase and thus the danger is still there.

We can easily eliminate C & D as they are out of scope.

Now both B & E are assuming that prestic acid content in water is directly proportional to the acid content in crab. But E goes too far to say that "goldfish would not be able to inhabit at all" while the argument just mentions that the goldfish population has just declined.

hence (B) is correct
Manager
Joined: 20 Jul 2013
Posts: 56
Re: After a number of migrant fishermen at the Rotunda Beach  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Aug 2014, 01:38
himanshujovi wrote:
umeshpatil wrote:
IMO: A
Premise 1: Eating the hermit crabs, fishermen got sick. So, Authorities displayed warning sign to forbid from eating crabs.
Premise 2: Crabs were acidic chemical prestic acid.
Conclusion: Authorities removed warning signal knowing decline in the goldfish population.

A) Goldfish found off Rotunda Beach cause hermit crabs to excrete prestic acid. Fishermen got sick by eating crab, whose excreta was acidic because of presence of goldfish around. Its good correlation. Now, As goldfish population has declined, it's correct to assume, crabs will not excrete prestic acid.
B) The amount of prestic acid produced by an individual goldfish has a direct positive correlation with the density of the goldfish population in that goldfish’s immediate vicinity. Prestic acid is proportional to goldfish population? then why fishermen felt sick by eating crab. They didn't eat goldfish. Wrong. No correlation with hermit crabs.
C) Goldfish consume various parasites that often contain prestic acid. Same error as B.
D) Rotunda Beach is notoriously polluted. Out of scope. Pollution has no interrelation with crabs and fishes.
E) Goldfish would not be able to inhabit the waters off Rotunda Beach if those waters were not saturated with a precise mixture of acids, including prestic acid. Same error as B,C

I am not convinced with OA. Can anyone please put light on this ?

I agree with your point. How is B in anyway related to crabs

Well, first off, let's review the argument:

The purpose of the signs was to prevent people from eating the crabs, which were high in prestic acid.
Removing the signs implies that the crabs are no longer high in prestic acid ~ hence, safe to eat.
Now, the only change has been the decline in the number of goldfish ... So --- there has to be a link between the number of goldfish and the amount of prestic acid from the crabs.

Choice B tells us: Less goldfish = Less Prestic Acid ======> meaning, crabs are now safe to eat.
Manager
Joined: 22 Aug 2014
Posts: 149
Re: After a number of migrant fishermen at the Rotunda Beach  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Apr 2015, 06:55
TGC wrote:
After a number of migrant fishermen at the Rotunda Beach pier got sick from consuming locally fished hermit crabs, the Rotunda Beach city authorities posted signs cautioning against the consumption of the crabs. Tests revealed that the crabs were high in prestic acid, a dangerous chemical. But a marked decline in the number of goldfish found by the beach has led to the removal of the warning signs.

Which of the following, if true, would best explain the removal of the signs?

Goldfish found off Rotunda Beach cause hermit crabs to excrete prestic acid.
The amount of prestic acid produced by an individual goldfish has a direct positive correlation with the density of the goldfish population in that goldfish’s immediate vicinity.
Goldfish consume various parasites that often contain prestic acid.
Rotunda Beach is notoriously polluted.
Goldfish would not be able to inhabit the waters off Rotunda Beach if those waters were not saturated with a precise mixture of acids, including prestic acid.
Source: Veri Prep

I think B is not best among the answer choices.
In B we are taking an assumption that Crabs are in the vicinity of Goldfish.It may be a condition where Goldfish reside on east shore and crabs on west shore.
In A ,we are directly told that goldfish is responsible for excretion of prestic acid in crabs so it satisfies both premises.I think A is more appropriate than B.
Can anyone still explain why B is correct? KyleWiddison tuanquang269
mikemcgarry ,I need your help here !
Manager
Joined: 12 Mar 2015
Posts: 87
GPA: 3.9
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: After a number of migrant fishermen at the Rotunda Beach  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 May 2016, 22:39
TGC wrote:
After a number of migrant fishermen at the Rotunda Beach pier got sick from consuming locally fished hermit crabs, the Rotunda Beach city authorities posted signs cautioning against the consumption of the crabs. Tests revealed that the crabs were high in prestic acid, a dangerous chemical. But a marked decline in the number of goldfish found by the beach has led to the removal of the warning signs.

Which of the following, if true, would best explain the removal of the signs?

Goldfish found off Rotunda Beach cause hermit crabs to excrete prestic acid.
The amount of prestic acid produced by an individual goldfish has a direct positive correlation with the density of the goldfish population in that goldfish’s immediate vicinity.
Goldfish consume various parasites that often contain prestic acid.
Rotunda Beach is notoriously polluted.
Goldfish would not be able to inhabit the waters off Rotunda Beach if those waters were not saturated with a precise mixture of acids, including prestic acid.
Source: Veri Prep

First and foremost we must not assume hermit crabs secrete prestic acid. That's a trap. They contain high amounts of prestic acid but it may be because the water itself is polluted with prestic acid because of external causes.
Option B tells us that gold fish generate prestic acid and decrease in its density reduces the concentration prestic acid. This option directly reduces the concentration of prestic acid in water and so crabs are now edible.

Hope this helps. !!
Manager
Joined: 14 May 2014
Posts: 57
Location: India
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V31
GPA: 3.44
Re: After a number of migrant fishermen at the Rotunda Beach  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 May 2016, 23:10
1
1
TGC wrote:
After a number of migrant fishermen at the Rotunda Beach pier got sick from consuming locally fished hermit crabs, the Rotunda Beach city authorities posted signs cautioning against the consumption of the crabs. Tests revealed that the crabs were high in prestic acid, a dangerous chemical. But a marked decline in the number of goldfish found by the beach has led to the removal of the warning signs.

Which of the following, if true, would best explain the removal of the signs?

>>Goldfish found off Rotunda Beach cause hermit crabs to excrete prestic acid.
>>The amount of prestic acid produced by an individual goldfish has a direct positive correlation with the density of the goldfish population in that goldfish’s immediate vicinity.
>> Goldfish would not be able to inhabit the waters off Rotunda Beach if those waters were not saturated with a precise mixture of acids, including prestic acid.

A very good question. Works on prethinking and correlation
Crabs have acid inside them and people are getting sick eating the acid inside the crab

Prethink--how is goldfish related to crab
assumed-> crab eats goldfish

question--> If crab eats goldfish, why has officers remove the caution that crabs are harmful??
crabs eat goldfish// farmers eat crabs--> population of crabs is maintained

If farmers wont eat crabs--> more crabs and thus less goldfish

Only B says this.
Intern
Joined: 01 Apr 2017
Posts: 2
Re: After a number of migrant fishermen at the Rotunda Beach  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Nov 2017, 04:30
So the assumption lied in B is that crabs don't produce acid by themselves, they are only contaminated by the acid available in the environment!!!
That explains why GF density decrease -> less acid -> crabs are safe to consume
Manager
Joined: 21 Sep 2015
Posts: 51
Re: After a number of migrant fishermen at the Rotunda Beach  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Nov 2017, 08:53
This simply isn't a good question....there's no point endlessly debating which answer is right. Both of them can be right..although personally I think A has more merit.

From the question, we need a reason to link: Decrease of Goldfish and Decrease of acid in Crabs.

A. Goldfish found off Rotunda Beach cause hermit crabs to excrete prestic acid.
This is pretty spot on..with the assumption that prestic acid excreted by crabs are ...contained/absorbed/on the surface of crabs. This is a pretty common sense assumption, whether crabs are in water or land. Therefore we have:

Less Goldfish => Less Acid excreted by crabs => Less Toxic Crabs

B. The amount of prestic acid produced by an individual goldfish has a direct positive correlation with the density of the goldfish population in that goldfish’s immediate vicinity.
This says #Goldfish is correlated with amount of acid. This actually needs 2 assumoptions.

(1) Similar as A - crabs absorb/contain acid in their habitat.
(2) Goldfish and crabs share similar habitat on the beach..which also works in a common sense perspective. Then we have:

Less Goldfish => Less Acid on beach => Less Toxic Crabs

In my opinion, A is better because it only requires 1 assumption and hence why a lot of people said: "A directly links crabs and fish". Never underestimate intuition.
_________________

Insanity at its finest.

SVP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1606
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
Re: After a number of migrant fishermen at the Rotunda Beach  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Nov 2017, 17:51
Only A,C,E deserves an explanation.
A is a trap; A is a common pattern about the causal relationship; in this question, even the goldfish declines, but the acid is still present -> A is out.
The key word in E is the "mixture of acids" -> E is incorrect.
Senior Manager
Status: To infinity and beyond
Joined: 26 Sep 2017
Posts: 253
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Technology
GMAT 1: 660 Q50 V30
GPA: 3.31
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Re: After a number of migrant fishermen at the Rotunda Beach  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Nov 2017, 02:21
Rosiee wrote:
So the assumption lied in B is that crabs don't produce acid by themselves, they are only contaminated by the acid available in the environment!!!
That explains why GF density decrease -> less acid -> crabs are safe to consume

True.It says gold fish produces the acid. Less Goldfish => Less Acid on beach => Less Toxic Crabs. B it is
_________________

Please give kudos if you like my post.Thanks

Director
Joined: 09 Mar 2017
Posts: 522
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Organizational Behavior
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: After a number of migrant fishermen at the Rotunda Beach  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Nov 2017, 05:35
Above explanations are suggesting that crabs have eaten GF and hence GF density has declined - which is why crabs now have less acid in them and thus are safe for eating--> removal of signs.
If the previous explanations are assumed correct with all the assumptions made for the premise, how does one justify the fact that crabs have eaten GF and should now have more acid in them. The crabs should be more dangerous to be eaten. Authorities should put two sign boards in that case!!!

Poor quality question. GMAT test-makers don't make such debatable questions.
_________________

------------------------------
"Trust the timing of your life"
Hit Kudus if this has helped you get closer to your goal, and also to assist others save time. Tq

Intern
Joined: 21 Oct 2009
Posts: 14
Location: India
Schools: XLRI (A)
GPA: 2.83
Re: After a number of migrant fishermen at the Rotunda Beach  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jan 2018, 20:42
TGC wrote:
After a number of migrant fishermen at the Rotunda Beach pier got sick from consuming locally fished hermit crabs, the Rotunda Beach city authorities posted signs cautioning against the consumption of the crabs. Tests revealed that the crabs were high in prestic acid, a dangerous chemical. But a marked decline in the number of goldfish found by the beach has led to the removal of the warning signs.

Which of the following, if true, would best explain the removal of the signs?

Goldfish found off Rotunda Beach cause hermit crabs to excrete prestic acid.
The amount of prestic acid produced by an individual goldfish has a direct positive correlation with the density of the goldfish population in that goldfish’s immediate vicinity.
Goldfish consume various parasites that often contain prestic acid.
Rotunda Beach is notoriously polluted.
Goldfish would not be able to inhabit the waters off Rotunda Beach if those waters were not saturated with a precise mixture of acids, including prestic acid.
Source: Veri Prep

I selected B...This was my line of reasoning...

A) has a flaw.....

Goldfish found off Rotunda Beach----->>> we are discussing of Rotunda beach and locally fished HC....so anything found off Rotunda beach even if true cannot be extrapolated to locally found Goldfish/HC/PA.....Whether same applies for locally found -Maybe/Maybe not......

B) If assumption is true-->> More GF in vicinity-->> More PA produced (in vicinity goes unsaid) and vice versa.....Marked decline in GF-->> marked decline in PA in vicinity.

Eating HC-->>consuming more PA-->> More Sickness (contra-opposites)
Not eating HC-->> Decline in PA consumption--->> Less sickness
Decline in GF-->> Decline in PA-->>less sickness
Re: After a number of migrant fishermen at the Rotunda Beach &nbs [#permalink] 23 Jan 2018, 20:42
Display posts from previous: Sort by