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

Question

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 main conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question. 
B. The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second states a contrary conclusion C 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 is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to justify; the second is an explanation that supports this conclusion.
E. The first supports an action as a beneficial; the second calls that evaluation into question.

LINK  : similar question but with different options.

Abhishek009 · Answer

CITIZENS : Allowing shark fishing ---->Increase in all smaller fish(including the endangered Green-Gilled Silverfish) 
 ECOLOGISTS : Decrease in sharks (Due to shark fishing) ---->Surge in Sea Lions ---->Principal predator of the Green-Gilled Silverfish.

Here both the Citizens and Ecologists conclude different ...
  
Among the given options only(B) satisfies !!!

MSarmah · Answer

Can someone explain why not  E ??

PrabhaMithila · Answer

Hi,

Pls explain why option E is incorrect??

Kezia9 · Answer

I too choose E which is incorrect. The second statement doesnot question anything.
Hope this helps.

akash.khatri · Answer

Its because E says 'first supports an action as beneficial'. But first is itself an action, it doesn't support one.
Hope this helps.

srinjoy1990 · Answer

Can some one explain how the second is the conclusion to the argument ? I think the conclusion is that Some people disagree.. pointing out the evidence.. According to this standpoint, B cannot be the answer, since the second part is not a conclusion but an evidence for the conclusion.

Tx,

Tx,

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

The key word here is that it says "supporting *a* conclusion". Not the main conclusion of the argument, just *a* conclusion within the argument. You are right in that there is the public conclusion, and the conclusion that some ecologists disagree.

The trap in this question is that neither conclusion is described as "the main conclusion" in this argument, there are simply conclusions that may or may not be main.

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

Options A and E, just like the others, all have a simple mistake that should allow you to eliminate them; it is that this argument has no main conclusion. There is a public conclusion, and the ecologists conclusion, but neither one of them is the 'main' one. So any option that says something about supporting or attacking the main conclusion of the argument can immediately be eliminated.

'A' talks about a main conclusion, and 'E' calls the first statement something that supports an action as beneficial. Something cannot be suggested as beneficial unless that beneficial thing is the main conclusion, so these answers are wrong.

B wins out because it simply calls the statements 'premises that support *a* conclusion'.

- Matoo

gmatconqueror2018 · Answer

I do not agree with the first part of Choice B. The first is NOT EVIDENCE but rather a FACT or OUTCOME. The rest of choice B is correct though/ Other's thoughts are appreciated.

Skywalker18 · Answer

Evidence is the same as fact. Either of them can be used to support a claim/opinion/position.

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

On one level, a good way to think about these terms used is that something that is a fact is always going to be evidence in some context or another.

However, on a more significant level, what you're looking to recognise is that when the word fact, evidence, observation, circumstance, data, etc. are used, what they can all be considered as in terms of the argument given is that they are all premises, and not the conclusion(s) being drawn.

- Matoo

MV94 · Answer

Hmmmmm. E seems pretty good here.

As for E, it doesn't seem like the author takes a side b/w the court decision and the ecologists, so for all we know, couldn't the author's conclusion be that the court decision might be beneficial? Maybe not, but either way it seems like a stretch to definitively say that the first bold supporting an action as beneficial is certainly wrong. Also, B states that the second conclusion is the main conclusion, and I just don't see any language in there to confirm that that is truly the author's viewpoint.

A tough one no doubt...

PayelRB · Answer

Even after going through all the comments , I am still wondering what is the conclusion. Can someone please explain what is exactly happening in the passage ?
Thanks!

CRACKGMATNUT · Answer

Hi Thanks for the explanation,

I am still confused about B. Even though no other option seems closer than B, but in B:

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

"that" refers to the ecologist conclusion and further says it is the main conclusion of the argument.

The problem is I wasn't able to identify the main conclusion in the first place. To me, there were 2 sets of opinion which had their own conclusion but not main conclusion of the argument. Main conclusion is something that author asserts, and not a 3rd person. part 2 of option B is a conclusion of Ecologist but not the author of the para. Can you explain what I am missing here?

arya251294 · Answer

Option B clearly talks about the main conclusion, so shall we get rid of that as well?
Please help

jim441 · Answer

main conclusion is "ecologists disagaree" and then second boldface has been provided as a support, so how come its the main conclusion as stated in option B.
I believe E is more clear.

awesome_burst · Answer

I cant still figure out how it is the main conclusion of the argument

ArpitaG · Answer

Not able to understand how is bold face 2 main conclusion of the argument?

Aashimabhatia · Answer

What is the main conclusion of this argument?

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

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

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

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards