Summer is Coming! Join the Game of Timers Competition to Win Epic Prizes. Registration is Open. Game starts Mon July 1st.

 It is currently 20 Jul 2019, 15:44

### 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

# After the recent court rulings, commercial shark fishing and shark hun

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Posts: 328
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
After the recent court rulings, commercial shark fishing and shark hun  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jul 2014, 17:06
6
19
00:00

Difficulty:

75% (hard)

Question Stats:

53% (02:05) correct 47% (02:16) wrong based on 813 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

After the recent court rulings, commercial shark fishing and shark hunting will resume in Diamond Bay. Many citizens of the communities around the bay have hailed this move, believing that a decrease in sharks will lead to an increase in all smaller fish, including the endangered Green-Gilled Silverfish, whose only ecosystem is within Diamond Bay. Ecologists, though, disagree, pointing out that a decrease in sharks will lead to a surge in Sea Lions, which are the principal predator of the Green-Gilled Silverfish.

In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A) The first provides support for conclusion of the argument; the second states that conclusion.

B) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second states a contrary conclusion that is the main conclusion of the argument.

C) The first is an opinion that the argument opposes; the second is evidence inconsistent with the conclusion of the argument.

D) The first describes the circumstances that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish

E) The first describes the circumstances that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second provides evidence in support of the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.

Also need answers to 3 questions:
1. How do first part of choices A and B differ?

2. Are the second parts of choices D and E wrong?

3. How do second parts of choices D and E differ?
Retired Moderator
Joined: 05 Sep 2010
Posts: 647
Re: After the recent court rulings, commercial shark fishing and shark hun  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jul 2014, 22:58
i do not think that B can be the answer !!
the main conclusion of the argument is that the "Ecologists" are disagreeing with the the ideas mentioned previously and the bold portion is an explanation as why they are disagreeing . the bold portion is not the main conclusion but the reasoning behind the main conclusion
Manager
Joined: 14 Dec 2011
Posts: 178
GPA: 3.46
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: After the recent court rulings, commercial shark fishing and shark hun  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jul 2014, 23:23
I selected B and here is why I felt B as the right answer

The first - commercial shark fishing and shark hunting will resume in Diamond Bay- describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion- Many citizens hailed the move believing that a decrease in sharks will lead to an increase in all smaller fish, including the endangered Green-Gilled Silverfish, whose only ecosystem is within Diamond Bay ;the second - a decrease in sharks will lead to a surge in Sea Lions, which are the principal predator of the Green-Gilled Silverfish- states a contrary conclusion that is the main conclusion of the argument.

2nd bold face is indeed the main conclusion of the argument even though it might be the conclusion of the Ecologists that is contrary to the conclusion of many citizens.

i do not think that B can be the answer !!
the main conclusion of the argument is that the "Ecologists" are disagreeing with the the ideas mentioned previously and the bold portion is an explanation as why they are disagreeing . the bold portion is not the main conclusion but the reasoning behind the main conclusion
Retired Moderator
Joined: 05 Sep 2010
Posts: 647
Re: After the recent court rulings, commercial shark fishing and shark hun  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jul 2014, 23:52
1
Quote:
2nd bold face is indeed the main conclusion of the argument even though it might be the conclusion of the Ecologists that is contrary to the conclusion of many citizens.

if second bold face is indeed the conclusion then what is the reasoning of that conclusion? .in other words what is the evidence of that conclusion ?
if you ask yourself the above mentioned question then u will realize that the reasoning of the main conclusion ( ecologist disagreeing with some ideas) is the following: a decrease in sharks will lead to a surge in Sea Lions, which are the principal predator of the Green-Gilled Silverfish.

always remember that all conclusions are based on some facts and evidence (reasoning).
BTW is this gmat prep question?
Manager
Joined: 14 Dec 2011
Posts: 178
GPA: 3.46
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: After the recent court rulings, commercial shark fishing and shark hun  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jul 2014, 23:58
I still feel the answer is correct as per my reasoning though I am no expert. So I might be missing something as you said always remember that all conclusions are based on some facts and evidence (reasoning).

I suppose Mike will be right person to comment to guide you more on this

Quote:
2nd bold face is indeed the main conclusion of the argument even though it might be the conclusion of the Ecologists that is contrary to the conclusion of many citizens.

if second bold face is indeed the conclusion then what is the reasoning of that conclusion? .in other words what is the evidence of that conclusion ?
if you ask yourself the above mentioned question then u will realize that the reasoning of the main conclusion ( ecologist disagreeing with some ideas) is the following: a decrease in sharks will lead to a surge in Sea Lions, which are the principal predator of the Green-Gilled Silverfish.

always remember that all conclusions are based on some facts and evidence (reasoning).
BTW is this gmat prep question?
Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Posts: 328
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
Re: After the recent court rulings, commercial shark fishing and shark hun  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2014, 19:57
1
mba1382 wrote:
I still feel the answer is correct as per my reasoning though I am no expert. So I might be missing something as you said always remember that all conclusions are based on some facts and evidence (reasoning).

I suppose Mike will be right person to comment to guide you more on this

Quote:
2nd bold face is indeed the main conclusion of the argument even though it might be the conclusion of the Ecologists that is contrary to the conclusion of many citizens.

if second bold face is indeed the conclusion then what is the reasoning of that conclusion? .in other words what is the evidence of that conclusion ?
if you ask yourself the above mentioned question then u will realize that the reasoning of the main conclusion ( ecologist disagreeing with some ideas) is the following: a decrease in sharks will lead to a surge in Sea Lions, which are the principal predator of the Green-Gilled Silverfish.

always remember that all conclusions are based on some facts and evidence (reasoning).
BTW is this gmat prep question?
@aditya8062, This is a problem from Magoosh. I hope that can be known from the tags.

I got an answer from Magoosh faculty(Kevin) on my questions. Here is verbatim response from Kevin:

How do first part of choices A and B differ?

Let's take a look at the first parts of those answers:
(A) The first provides support for conclusion of the argument;
(B) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion;
Now these are really similar. The key here is knowing what the final conclusion of this argument it is. We have to read the whole passage to see that there is one conclusion made by the citizens and then another conclusion made by Ecologists. Since the Ecologists conclusion comes at the end, we have to assume this is the final conclusion of the argument.

Once we know this, we can see that (B) is a little bit better since it hints at the fact that there are two conclusions and that one of them used this bolded sentence to support their conclusion. Nothing in (A) is necessarily wrong. It doesn't contain this extra detail so it is not as good as (B).

Are the second parts of choices D and E wrong? How do second parts of D and E differ?

Alright, let's take a look at these now:
(D) the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish
(E) the second provides evidence in support of the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.'
So we can say that (E) is wrong because it says that the second bolded statement "provides evidence." When someone says "will ..." in their sentence, they are not presenting evidence, they are making a claim. This should be read as a conclusion. So the second part of (E) is wrong for this reason.

Looking at (D), we can see that it is different. It does not make the same claim that (E) does about "providing evidence." So they are different. But (E) is wrong for another reason. The argument is making a claim. There is a conclusion being drawn here. (D) makes it sound like the second bolded sentence is an explanation. Now we need to be clear. What is the difference between and "explanation" and a "conclusion"? A conclusion is a claim supported by evidence. An "explanation" is a description of something. An explanation could be a conclusion but generally it is not, especially in the context of an argument. And explanation will be more objective and more descriptive.

This question might need to be revised. I can see that there are some subtle differences in these answer choices that make this question a little ambiguous.
Manager
Joined: 12 Sep 2014
Posts: 142
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V41
GPA: 3.94
Re: After the recent court rulings, commercial shark fishing and shark hun  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Oct 2014, 08:50
I think it must be B. This is how I thought it through: the first part is a premise/evidence for conclusion A that decreasing sharks will increase these fish. However, the main conclusion is that decrease sharks will lead to decreasing these fish (contrary to first conclusion).
Manager
Joined: 27 May 2014
Posts: 71
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
Schools: HKUST '15, ISB '15
GMAT Date: 12-26-2014
GPA: 3
Re: After the recent court rulings, commercial shark fishing and shark hun  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Oct 2014, 00:28
I marked A because I was not very clear about the conclusion of the argument.
It seems to be that there are two POV's one of citizen's and other of Ecologists. There were no Keywords to find a conclusion.
I am not able to digest that in case of two POV's, the one which comes later should be a conclusion.

Quote:
A) The first provides support for conclusion of the argument; the second states that conclusion.
B) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second states a contrary conclusion that is the main conclusion of the argument.

Out of the above 2 , A should be the answer because it is true always and is independent of whatever the conclusion is !
It doesn't ask to point out the conclusion(be it main or counter which itself is not well defined in the first place)
However, B forces you to make a decision about the conclusion.

Can somebody please enlighten me ?
_________________
Success has been and continues to be defined as Getting up one more time than you have been knocked down.
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Sep 2014
Posts: 345
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
Re: After the recent court rulings, commercial shark fishing and shark hun  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Apr 2015, 06:30
I don't think B should be the answer

B) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second states a contrary conclusion that is the main conclusion of the argument.

commercial shark fishing and shark hunting will resume in Diamond Bay. --> it is not evidence. By definition, evidence is a fact and it should be conveyed in past or present, for sure not in future.

a decrease in sharks will lead to a surge in Sea Lions, which are the principal predator of the Green-Gilled Silverfish --> it is not the contrary conclusion, contrary conclusion is that decrease in sharks will not lead to an increase in all smaller fish.

Should be D IMO.
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Sep 2014
Posts: 345
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
Re: After the recent court rulings, commercial shark fishing and shark hun  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Apr 2015, 06:31
VarunBhardwaj wrote:
I marked A because I was not very clear about the conclusion of the argument.
It seems to be that there are two POV's one of citizen's and other of Ecologists. There were no Keywords to find a conclusion.
I am not able to digest that in case of two POV's, the one which comes later should be a conclusion.

Quote:
A) The first provides support for conclusion of the argument; the second states that conclusion.
B) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second states a contrary conclusion that is the main conclusion of the argument.

Out of the above 2 , A should be the answer because it is true always and is independent of whatever the conclusion is !
It doesn't ask to point out the conclusion(be it main or counter which itself is not well defined in the first place)
However, B forces you to make a decision about the conclusion.

Can somebody please enlighten me ?

it cant be A for the same reason I stated above.
Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Apr 2015
Posts: 365
Re: After the recent court rulings, commercial shark fishing and shark hun  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 May 2015, 00:16
1
MyaimHarvard wrote:
VarunBhardwaj wrote:
I marked A because I was not very clear about the conclusion of the argument.
It seems to be that there are two POV's one of citizen's and other of Ecologists. There were no Keywords to find a conclusion.
I am not able to digest that in case of two POV's, the one which comes later should be a conclusion.

Quote:
A) The first provides support for conclusion of the argument; the second states that conclusion.
B) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second states a contrary conclusion that is the main conclusion of the argument.

Out of the above 2 , A should be the answer because it is true always and is independent of whatever the conclusion is !
It doesn't ask to point out the conclusion(be it main or counter which itself is not well defined in the first place)
However, B forces you to make a decision about the conclusion.

Can somebody please enlighten me ?

it cant be A for the same reason I stated above.

Hi,

I think it should be B.

Anything that leads to go onto make a side or a position is an evidence. In this case the decision to allow commercial shark fishing and hunting leads us to the conclusion that the endangered fish species will be helped by the decision.Hence the decison is not the conclusion.

Now given and taking into consideration what this first conclusion says the main conclusion brings in another contrasting conclusion and because this has taken into consideration the first conclusion... this is the main conclusion.

Hope it helps.

Regards,
Dom
Manager
Joined: 20 Jul 2012
Posts: 117
Location: India
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: After the recent court rulings, commercial shark fishing and shark hun  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 May 2015, 13:24
can someone help with this question?
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 792
Re: After the recent court rulings, commercial shark fishing and shark hun  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 May 2015, 06:35
aks456 wrote:
can someone help with this question?

Happy to help. Do you just need a general explanation of the question or do you have specific questions?

KW
_________________

Kyle Widdison | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Utah

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile

Intern
Joined: 12 Nov 2015
Posts: 6
Re: After the recent court rulings, commercial shark fishing and shark hun  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Dec 2017, 23:53
What is the other conclusion in the argument as according to B the second bold face is the contrary conclusion?
Manager
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Posts: 64
Location: India
GMAT 1: 510 Q46 V17
WE: Web Development (Energy and Utilities)
Re: After the recent court rulings, commercial shark fishing and shark hun  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Dec 2017, 21:26
rocky438singh wrote:
What is the other conclusion in the argument as according to B the second bold face is the contrary conclusion?

1st bold sentence helps(or stands as evidence) for Citizen to conclude something.
2nd bold part makes contrary conclusion(Ecologist's conclusion) to 1st conclusion which is made by citizens.
_________________
-Yuvaraj
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stop searching someone to motivate you.
SC Moderator
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Posts: 1746
After the recent court rulings, commercial shark fishing and shark hun  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 May 2018, 18:52
1

MAGGOSH OE:

The first bold statement is factual, evidence, and from this citizens draw a conclusion: good for the Green-Gilled Silverfish. The ecologists provide another fact, more evidence, and from all this evidence draw the opposite conclusion: bad for the Green-Gilled Silverfish. This latter is the second bold statement and is the main conclusion of the argument. Thus, the first bold statement is evidence that, at least initially, seems to support the citizen's conclusion, but the second, what the ecologist say, concludes the opposite. This is precisely what choice (B), the OA, says.

The first statement is a purely factual statement: shark fishing and hunting will resume. Just a plain unambiguous factual statement. This is evidence. This doesn't not inherent provide support for anything, as (A) suggests, nor it is a opinion, as (C) suggests, nor it is a conclusion, as (D) suggestion. Finally, the first statement describes the fact, the action, itself. The next sentence talks about how some people think this action is beneficial, but the first underlined statement itself says nothing about any value judgement: it is purely factual and descriptive. That's precisely why (E) is not correct.
_________________
Thanks!
Do give some kudos.

Simple strategy:
“Once you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 1| GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 2 | How to Improve GMAT Quant from Q49 to a Perfect Q51 | Time management

My Notes:
Reading comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Absolute Phrases | Subjunctive Mood
Senior Manager
Joined: 14 Feb 2018
Posts: 389
Re: After the recent court rulings, commercial shark fishing and shark hun  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 May 2018, 04:21
I find B completely lame. First boldface is NOT an evidence !!

D is a better choice because first boldface is surely a true incident which is being discussed. Second boldface actually states that what the author seeks to establish at the end that sea lions are the principal predator of green filled silverfish.

B...I cannot digest

Sent from my Lenovo K53a48 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app
SC Moderator
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Posts: 1746
Re: After the recent court rulings, commercial shark fishing and shark hun  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 May 2018, 07:23
SonalSinha803 wrote:
I find B completely lame. First boldface is NOT an evidence !!

D is a better choice because first boldface is surely a true incident which is being discussed. Second boldface actually states that what the author seeks to establish at the end that sea lions are the principal predator of green filled silverfish.

B...I cannot digest

Sent from my Lenovo K53a48 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Hope this will help.

Pre-thinking - For Bold face questions, sequence of events is very important. the last of this sequence will be the conclusion.

1. After the recent court rulings, commercial shark fishing and shark hunting will resume in Diamond Bay. >>> [Conclusion]Many citizens of the communities around the bay have hailed this move, believing that a decrease in sharks will lead to an increase in all smaller fish, including the endangered Green-Gilled Silverfish, whose only ecosystem is within Diamond Bay.

use of though, disagree suggest change of direction: [anti-conclusion]
2. Ecologists, though, disagree, pointing out that a decrease in sharks will lead to a surge in Sea Lions, which are the principal predator of the Green-Gilled Silverfish.

relation b/w these two. Cause of 1st 2nd is happening. So 2nd should have conclusion or part of conclusion. or say 2nd have ultimate conclusion.

1st BF - Clearly evidence that is supporting the conclusion.
2nd BF - something anti conclusion.

In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A) The first provides support for conclusion of the argument; the second states that conclusion. --- 1st BF correct. 2nd is wrong.
B) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second states a contrary conclusion that is the main conclusion of the argument. ---- 1st is correct. 2nd is tricky. clearly contrary conclusion part is correct. 2nd part is main conclusion.
C) The first is an opinion that the argument opposes; the second is evidence inconsistent with the conclusion of the argument. --- Both are wrong.
D) The first describes the circumstances that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish--- both wrong.
E) The first describes the circumstances that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second provides evidence in support of the explanation that the argument seeks to establish. --- both not correct.

Regarding your doubt, Are you 100% true that this will happen. "commercial shark fishing and shark hunting will resume in Diamond Bay." there is a weakner given in later part of the passage. If sea lion increased then also this fish will decrease. Also 2nd is not author's position it is Ecologists's.
_________________
Thanks!
Do give some kudos.

Simple strategy:
“Once you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 1| GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 2 | How to Improve GMAT Quant from Q49 to a Perfect Q51 | Time management

My Notes:
Reading comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Absolute Phrases | Subjunctive Mood
Manager
Joined: 30 Sep 2017
Posts: 147
Re: After the recent court rulings, commercial shark fishing and shark hun  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 May 2018, 22:02
1
After the recent court rulings, commercial shark fishing and shark hunting will resume in Diamond Bay. Many citizens of the communities around the bay have hailed this move, believing that a decrease in sharks will lead to an increase in all smaller fish, including the endangered Green-Gilled Silverfish, whose only ecosystem is within Diamond Bay. Ecologists, though, disagree, pointing out that a decrease in sharks will lead to a surge in Sea Lions, which are the principal predator of the Green-Gilled Silverfish.

In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A) The first provides support for conclusion of the argument; the second states that conclusion. the first underlies the belief of the citizens. There's other evidence that supports the main conclusion
B) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second states a contrary conclusion that is the main conclusion of the argument. I agree that this one is not entirely clear but the best from all. As said in the above, the first is the ground for the claim of the citizens. The second I would say is evidence but never mind - undermine the claim of the citizens
C) The first is an opinion that the argument opposes; the second is evidence inconsistent with the conclusion of the argument. the first is a fact: ruling that allows to hunt sharks
D) The first describes the circumstances that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish while it could treated as circumstance, the main conclusion is about refuting the belief of the citizens and not explaining some fact
E) The first describes the circumstances that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second provides evidence in support of the explanation that the argument seeks to establish. while it could treated as circumstance, the main conclusion is about refuting the belief of the citizens and not explaining some fact
Intern
Joined: 26 Feb 2017
Posts: 31
Re: After the recent court rulings, commercial shark fishing and shark hun  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jul 2018, 10:21
I've a problem in understanding the Bold-face. Please explain how do we come to this answer?
Re: After the recent court rulings, commercial shark fishing and shark hun   [#permalink] 21 Jul 2018, 10:21
Display posts from previous: Sort by