Bottom trawling is a type of deep-sea fishing that involves dragging a

Premise 1: Bottom trawling is a type of deep-sea fishing that involves dragging a large net along the bottom of the ocean, and it results in catching and killing many unintended species, some of which are endangered.

Premise 2: New set of nets, each designed specifically for the size and shape and pheromones (chemical attractors) of an individual marine species targeted by the commercial fishers.

Conclusion: New nets will protect the endangered marine species without interrupting commercial deep-sea fishing
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the claim that use of the new nets will have the intended effects?

A.) The pheromones that would most attract the food species sought by commercial fishers indicate the presence of a dangerous threat to most of the endangered marine species.
=> This choice indicates that the old pheromone is the threat to endangered species => So, should change the new type pheromones and the new net to avoid harming the endangered species.
B.) Some endangered marine species are particularly large, as large any species targeted by commercial deep-sea fishing.
=> Irrelevant
C.)Most of the newly design nets are not significantly more expensive than a typical bottom trawling system.
=> Cost of the new net is irrelevant to the conclusion which stated the benefits
D.)Catching unintended, endangered species adds nothing to the profits of a commercial deep-sea fishing company.
=> Profit is also irrelevant
E.)Freshwater fishers often increase the odds of catching a desired fish, and avoid catching unintended species, by the specific design of the fishing hook.
=> Freshwater fishers are also irrelevant here

From the passage it is evident that the pheromones are part of the organism. How can we say that only one type of pheromones would be released?

i do not get A. Are we to assume that the new net releases pheromones?

Hii friend
Option A is highly prephrased in such a way that it takes time to understand its intended meaning(happened with me)
It basically states that these pheromones of new net attract the sea food and make the endangered species,who are near the net, feel the presence of something dangerous to their lives that makes them stay away from the net..therefore only the required sea food will be captured by the net and intended effect will take place..


Hope it clears ur doubt..




please consider KUDOS if my post helped..thank you.

Isn't option B acting as strengthener?

Argument says that net designed for specific size and shape....In option B it is said that endangered species are larger than the species attractive to fishermen.If new net is designed specifically for small species attractive to fisherman,then larger endangered species may not get caught.Thus,strengthening the conclusion.

B is actually functioning as a weakener. The nets are designed for the size and shape of the commercial fish. Think about how the nets work...bigger items get caught while smaller ones safely swim through. If the endangered species are the same size as the commercial fish, they too would get caught in the nets - thus weakening the conclusion.

KW

Bottom trawling is a type of deep-sea fishing that involves dragging a large net along the bottom of the ocean, and it results in catching and killing many unintended species, some of which are endangered. Environmental advocates, concerned for these endangered marine species, have recommended that commercial fishers use a new set of nets, each designed specifically for the size and shape and pheromones (chemical attractors) of an individual marine species targeted by the commercial fishers. Environmentalists hope use of these new nets will protect the endangered marine species without interrupting commercial deep-sea fishing.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the claim that use of the new nets will have the intended effects?

(A) The pheromones that would most attract the food species sought by commercial fishers indicate the presence of a dangerous threat to most of the endangered marine species
(B) Some endangered marine species are particularly large, as large any species targeted by commercial deep-sea fishing.
(C) Most of the newly design nets are not significantly more expensive than a typical bottom trawling system.
(D) Catching unintended, endangered species adds nothing to the profits of a commercial deep-sea fishing company.
(E) Freshwater fishers often increase the odds of catching a desired fish, and avoid catching unintended species, by the specific design of the fishing hook.

The OA will be provided in the next 24 hours

All answer choices but A are out of scope

Hope this helps. I m non fully convinced that is a 700 level question

Regards

I am a little bir confused by option A. Who has pheromones? Marine species or net? Looks like marine species. But from option A what pheromones would attract marine species? Pheromones in the new net?

Bottom trawling is a type of deep-sea fishing that involves dragging a large net along the bottom of the ocean, and it results in catching and killing many unintended species, some of which are endangered. Environmental advocates, concerned for these endangered marine species, have recommended that commercial fishers use a new set of nets, each designed specifically for the size and shape and pheromones (chemical attractors) of an individual marine species targeted by the commercial fishers. Environmentalists hope use of these new nets will protect the endangered marine species without interrupting commercial deep-sea fishing.


Prephrase :
Here, as per the statement the main goal of the Environmentalists is that new nets will protect the endangered species and will get only the expected species. It is also mentioned that the chemical attractors of an individual species will make fall into the net trap. The hidden information is that new net is designed is such a way that expected species will take new net to a kind of food or some kind of attraction.

The newly designed net will make the endangered species shoo away from the net because they think that the net is a threat ( designed in such manner to threaten the species).

Thus, the endangered are protected and expected species will fall into the trap in the newly designed net and option A fits the bill.

Hope this clears....

(A) The pheromones that would most attract the food species sought by commercial fishers indicate the presence of a dangerous threat to most of the endangered marine species . If pheromones indicate dangerous threat to endangered species while increasing food species, the plan will be successful.

(B) Some endangered marine species are particularly large, as large any species targeted by commercial deep-sea fishing. If endangered species are large, then they might not be able to escape. plan will not be successful.

(C) Most of the newly design nets are not significantly more expensive than a typical bottom trawling system. Price is not discussed.

(D) Catching unintended, endangered species adds nothing to the profits of a commercial deep-sea fishing company. Its good, but we want to know if the plan will be successful.

(E) Freshwater fishers often increase the odds of catching a desired fish, and avoid catching unintended species, by the specific design of the fishing hook. Increasing the odds of catching desired fishes is not helpful

Thanks msk0657! Now a little bit clear. But still hard to imagine a net that imitates marines pheromones

Dear Konstantin1983, I know this question is hard to imagine in that way, but in CR based questions we need to take everything as accurate and correct whatever is given in the argument, even though it is incorrect or impossible in the real world.

Hi mikemcgarry and other experts,
For option C , I have another approach but I am not sure whether it is valid, would you please help check ?

The question states which can support that use of new nets will arrival it's exception.
I think this stem need a strengthen based on use of new nets, so I wont consider whether fishers use new nets or not.

C indicates it is likely for fishers to use new nets because it is cheap,
So I did not pick up C.

my approach is far away with yours, I am not sure whether mine is valid.

Please help check

thanks in advance

have a nice day
>_~

Dear zoezhuyan,
I'm happy to respond. How are you?

I don't understand your sentence: "The question states which can support that use of new nets will arrival it's exception." To be perfectly honest, I don't know what you are trying to say. Because I can't understand this, I can't comment on your approach.

The prompt is: "Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the claim that use of the new nets will have the intended effects?", and the "intended effects" are "[protecting] the endangered marine species without interrupting commercial deep-sea fishing."

Perhaps you can clarify, my friend.

Mike

Hi mikemcgarry,

Sorry for my ambiguous sentence.
Sorry for my late reply because I was busy with preparation for CNY (Chinese New Year )
My former intended that arrival it's exception is replaced with intended effect, which meansprotect the engender marine species.

Please let my clarify my question.
First, I want to cite 2 scenarios :
#1 /
A: Have you checked C's plan?
B: Yes, I have done it last Sunday.
A: What do you think of the plan's intended effect ?
B: Bla bla bla..

#2/
A: What do you think of the plan's intended effect ?
B: Bla bla bla..


Scenario #1, there is a statement that B has read the plan.
Scenario #2, there is an assumption that B has read the plan.

So, my reason is if at the beginning, A raised a question that What do you think of the plan's intended effect , then, A must based on the assumption that B has read the plan.
Like this reason, if the argument raised a question about intended effect, then I based on the assumption that the commercial fishers will use the new nets.

Therefore, I will eliminate answer if it discuss whether the commercial fishers will use new nets or not.
Here, answer C intends to discuss whether commercial fishers will use new ones or not.
That's my cross off - reasoning.

Genuinely want your recommendations about my faults

Thanks in advance.

Have a nice day
>_~

Dear zoezhuyan,

Happy new year, my friend! Happy Year of the Rooster! I'm happy to respond.

Unfortunately, your question is still hard to follow. One problem concerns the confusing use of letters. Normally, I would think that (A), (B), and (C) would refer to the answer choices in this question. Instead, I think what you have done is create an imaginary dialogue and given the characters these letter names. Now, an imaginary dialogue to illustrate a point is fine, but it's very confusing to use the same letters for characters as for answer choices. A dialogue among characters P, Q, and R would be perfectly fine.

Even assuming that the letter refer to characters in the dialogue, and not answer choices, what you are asking is still unusual. If I understand your question correct, I would say that the the distinction you are drawing doesn't matter.

Suppose I execute Plan J, with the intention that, say, more money goes to School Q. Then, suppose I leave the country or somehow never hear about School Q again. Now, zoezhuyan comes along and enacts Plan K, which happens to support Plan J. As a result of zoezhuyan enacting Plan K, it happens that School Q gets all the money it needs. In this scenario, even though I am totally out of the picture, my intended effect was still realized. It doesn't matter at all whether I am present or aware for my intended effect to be realized. Also, it doesn't matter whether zoezhuyan had the same intention. Maybe zoezhuyan didn't know a single thing about School Q or Plan J and simply was enacting Plan K for some other unrelated reason altogether. Even if it were "by accident" that School Q wound up getting money, an unintended consequence that was off everyone's radar, even then, it is still true that my intended effect was realized.

I don't know whether this answers your question. Let me know.

Mike

Bottom trawling is a type of deep-sea fishing that involves dragging a large net along the bottom of the ocean, and it results in catching and killing many unintended species, some of which are endangered. Environmental advocates, concerned for these endangered marine species, have recommended that commercial fishers use a new set of nets, each designed specifically for the size and shape and pheromones (chemical attractors) of an individual marine species targeted by the commercial fishers. Environmentalists hope use of these new nets will protect the endangered marine species without interrupting commercial deep-sea fishing.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the claim that use of the new nets will have the intended effects?

The environmentalists' claim: new nets will protect the endangered marine species without interrupting commercial deep-sea fishing.
New nets: designed specifically for the size and shape and contains pheromones (chemical attractors) of an individual marine species targeted by the commercial fishers.

Possible Strengthners: 1) Most of the endangered species are not of the size of the fishes that are caught.
2) The pheromones do not attract the endangered species.


A.) The pheromones that would most attract the food species sought by commercial fishers indicate the presence of a dangerous threat to most of the endangered marine species.

This is in line with the Possible Strengthener 2. If the pheromones repel the endangered species that's a good thing, right?

B.) Some endangered marine species are particularly large, as large any species targeted by commercial deep-sea fishing.

Some can be, say 40 species out of 100 endangered species. Therefore, it is no good to support the new nets.

C.) Most of the newly design nets are not significantly more expensive than a typical bottom trawling system.

Cost was never a factor. This point is irrelevant.

D.) Catching unintended, endangered species adds nothing to the profits of a commercial deep-sea fishing company.

Out of context. Here we are trying not to catch the endangered species and not trying to figure out what good they do after they have been caught.

E.) Freshwater fishers often increase the odds of catching a desired fish, and avoid catching unintended species, by the specific design of the fishing hook.

Sea waters are not freshwater. So we cannot draw an analogy. Moreover, in freshwater use the of fishing hook is discussed.

Thus, option A.