Last visit was: 20 Nov 2025, 06:36 It is currently 20 Nov 2025, 06:36
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2 
User avatar
bhavikagoyal2009
User avatar
Joined: 29 Apr 2017
Last visit: 13 Nov 2018
Posts: 15
Own Kudos:
4
Given Kudos: 19
Schools: Yale '20 (I)
GMAT 1: 640 Q49 V27
GMAT 2: 730 Q51 V37
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: Yale '20 (I)
GMAT 2: 730 Q51 V37
Posts: 15
Kudos: 4
Commercial shark fishing and shark hunting will resume in Diamond Bay 20 Jun 2017, 02:26
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mikemcgarry
bhavikagoyal2009
Hello Mike. Could you please elaborate on Answer Choice "E" more? Both BF1 and BF2 makes sense- For instance, BF2 raises questions on the citizen's conclusions, by providing some more insight. Why is this wrong?
Dear bhavikagoyal2009,

I'm happy to respond. :-)

My friend, I would suggest comparing the language in (B) to the language in (E).
(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.

(E) The first supports an action as a beneficial; the second calls that evaluation into question.

Now, think about BF#1:
. . . commercial shark fishing and shark hunting will resume in Diamond Bay.
This is a purely factual statement and the "citizens of the communities around the bay" think it's a good thing. In other words, they draw a conclusion about this. Thus, it makes perfect sense to say that this BF#1 is "evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion."
Could we say that BF#1 "supports an action as a beneficial"? Well, the citizens hear about this BF, and then have beliefs about it, but they don't actually do anything! All these citizens are just sitting there having beliefs. Beliefs are not actions. Nothing is actually done.
Insofar as BF#1 was a court ruling, we could say that the BF#1 was an action. It was an action that later was judged as "beneficial," at least by these citizens. Arguably, it was an action, but it didn't support another action.

That's the problem with (E).

Does this make sense?
Mike :-)
Show more

Thankyou Mike. This explanation helps. :)
User avatar
Anandanwar
User avatar
Joined: 29 Oct 2021
Last visit: 20 Nov 2025
Posts: 55
Own Kudos:
8
Given Kudos: 2,991
Products:
Forum Quiz
Posts: 55
Kudos: 8
Commercial shark fishing and shark hunting will resume in Diamond Bay 06 May 2022, 09:54
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hello,

I little help needed here :)

"After the recent court rulings, commercial shark fishing and shark hunting will resume in Diamond Bay. "

The first BF is a something in future. How can something in future be called an evidence?

Regards,
Ankit
User avatar
ReedArnoldMPREP
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2021
Last visit: 20 Dec 2024
Posts: 521
Own Kudos:
536
Given Kudos: 37
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Posts: 521
Kudos: 536
Commercial shark fishing and shark hunting will resume in Diamond Bay 06 May 2022, 10:40
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Anandanwar
Hello,

I little help needed here :)

"After the recent court rulings, commercial shark fishing and shark hunting will resume in Diamond Bay. "

The first BF is a something in future. How can something in future be called an evidence?

Regards,
Ankit
Show more

Hi Ankit--

"Evidence" is just a given reason that supports the conclusion. The tense of the evidence doesn't matter at all.

"It will almost certainly rain next Tuesday, so lots of people will be carrying umbrellas."

The conclusion is that people will be carrying umbrellas. The premise is that it will rain tomorrow. The fact that the evidence is in the future doesn't mean it's not evidence for the conclusion.

You can even use a future event as evidence for a conclusion about the past.

"It will almost certainly rain tomorrow. Umbrella sales yesterday were probably higher than average."

All that matters is what evidence supports what conclusion.
User avatar
PyjamaScientist
User avatar
Admitted - Which School Forum Moderator
Joined: 25 Oct 2020
Last visit: 05 Nov 2025
Posts: 1,118
Own Kudos:
1,307
Given Kudos: 633
Schools: Ross '25 (M$)
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42 (Online)
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: Ross '25 (M$)
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42 (Online)
Posts: 1,118
Kudos: 1,307
Commercial shark fishing and shark hunting will resume in Diamond Bay 06 May 2022, 11:36
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ReedArnoldMPREP

"Evidence" is just a given reason that supports the conclusion. The tense of the evidence doesn't matter at all.
"It will almost certainly rain next Tuesday, so lots of people will be carrying umbrellas."
The conclusion is that people will be carrying umbrellas. The premise is that it will rain tomorrow. The fact that the evidence is in the future doesn't mean it's not evidence for the conclusion.
You can even use a future event as evidence for a conclusion about the past.
"It will almost certainly rain tomorrow. Umbrella sales yesterday were probably higher than average."
All that matters is what evidence supports what conclusion.
Show more
Hi ReedArnoldMPREP,

Do you believe this argument has a conclusion? In my opinion, it is just stating the opinions of two sides and there's no conclusion as such.

Could you please share your thoughts?
User avatar
ReedArnoldMPREP
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2021
Last visit: 20 Dec 2024
Posts: 521
Own Kudos:
536
Given Kudos: 37
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Posts: 521
Kudos: 536
Commercial shark fishing and shark hunting will resume in Diamond Bay 06 May 2022, 11:50
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
PyjamaScientist
ReedArnoldMPREP

"Evidence" is just a given reason that supports the conclusion. The tense of the evidence doesn't matter at all.
"It will almost certainly rain next Tuesday, so lots of people will be carrying umbrellas."
The conclusion is that people will be carrying umbrellas. The premise is that it will rain tomorrow. The fact that the evidence is in the future doesn't mean it's not evidence for the conclusion.
You can even use a future event as evidence for a conclusion about the past.
"It will almost certainly rain tomorrow. Umbrella sales yesterday were probably higher than average."
All that matters is what evidence supports what conclusion.
Hi ReedArnoldMPREP,

Do you believe this argument has a conclusion? In my opinion, it is just stating the opinions of two sides and there's no conclusion as such.

Could you please share your thoughts?
Show more

There are contrasting conclusions. Some people think that the decrease in sharks will lead to more smaller fish, including silverfish. Ecologists think the decrease in sharks will actually result in a decrease in silverfish. So there's not one 'driving' conclusion that the author is trying to convince you of, but there are two arguments in the passage:

1). Shark hunting is coming back-->decrease in sharks-->increase in small fish (inc silverfish)

2) Shark hunting is coming back -->decrease in sharks-->increase in sea lions-->decrease (or at least, no increase) in silverfish.
User avatar
PyjamaScientist
User avatar
Admitted - Which School Forum Moderator
Joined: 25 Oct 2020
Last visit: 05 Nov 2025
Posts: 1,118
Own Kudos:
1,307
Given Kudos: 633
Schools: Ross '25 (M$)
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42 (Online)
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: Ross '25 (M$)
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42 (Online)
Posts: 1,118
Kudos: 1,307
Commercial shark fishing and shark hunting will resume in Diamond Bay 06 May 2022, 11:55
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ReedArnoldMPREP
PyjamaScientist
ReedArnoldMPREP

"Evidence" is just a given reason that supports the conclusion. The tense of the evidence doesn't matter at all.
"It will almost certainly rain next Tuesday, so lots of people will be carrying umbrellas."
The conclusion is that people will be carrying umbrellas. The premise is that it will rain tomorrow. The fact that the evidence is in the future doesn't mean it's not evidence for the conclusion.
You can even use a future event as evidence for a conclusion about the past.
"It will almost certainly rain tomorrow. Umbrella sales yesterday were probably higher than average."
All that matters is what evidence supports what conclusion.
Hi ReedArnoldMPREP,

Do you believe this argument has a conclusion? In my opinion, it is just stating the opinions of two sides and there's no conclusion as such.

Could you please share your thoughts?

There are contrasting conclusions. Some people think that the decrease in sharks will lead to more smaller fish, including silverfish. Ecologists think the decrease in sharks will actually result in a decrease in silverfish. So there's not one 'driving' conclusion that the author is trying to convince you of, but there are two arguments in the passage:

1). Shark hunting is coming back-->decrease in sharks-->increase in small fish (inc silverfish)

2) Shark hunting is coming back -->decrease in sharks-->increase in sea lions-->decrease (or at least, no increase) in silverfish.
Show more
Exactly! Hence, their is no main conclusion in the argument as such and therefore option (B) simply can not be the right answer.

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
ReedArnoldMPREP
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2021
Last visit: 20 Dec 2024
Posts: 521
Own Kudos:
536
Given Kudos: 37
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Posts: 521
Kudos: 536
Commercial shark fishing and shark hunting will resume in Diamond Bay 06 May 2022, 11:59
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I see your point, but there's just no other option. While it's not entirely clear B *must* be the main conclusion, it certainly *could* be.
User avatar
PyjamaScientist
User avatar
Admitted - Which School Forum Moderator
Joined: 25 Oct 2020
Last visit: 05 Nov 2025
Posts: 1,118
Own Kudos:
1,307
Given Kudos: 633
Schools: Ross '25 (M$)
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42 (Online)
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: Ross '25 (M$)
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42 (Online)
Posts: 1,118
Kudos: 1,307
Commercial shark fishing and shark hunting will resume in Diamond Bay 06 May 2022, 12:06
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ReedArnoldMPREP
I see your point, but there's just no other option. While it's not entirely clear B *must* be the main conclusion, it certainly *could* be.
Show more
(E) looks better than (B) to me. Doesn't it look plausible to you?

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
ReedArnoldMPREP
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2021
Last visit: 20 Dec 2024
Posts: 521
Own Kudos:
536
Given Kudos: 37
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Posts: 521
Kudos: 536
Commercial shark fishing and shark hunting will resume in Diamond Bay 06 May 2022, 13:28
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
PyjamaScientist
ReedArnoldMPREP
I see your point, but there's just no other option. While it's not entirely clear B *must* be the main conclusion, it certainly *could* be.
(E) looks better than (B) to me. Doesn't it look plausible to you?

Posted from my mobile device
Show more

No, not really.

"The first supports an action as beneficial." But it doesn't. It's a situation everyone agrees will happen--the ban on shark fishing will end. That on its own doesn't support anything as 'beneficial' or not. It's simply what will happen. Some people think that the net result WILL BE A BENEFIT, but the fact itself doesn't 'support AN ACTION' as beneficial (what 'action' do you think the first bolded statement 'supports'?)

If E said something like "The first is a circumstance some believe will have beneficial outcomes, the second calls that evaluation into question' it might be right. But the first statement does not 'support an action as beneficial.' It's just... the state of affairs. Shark hunting will be allowed. Different people see different outcomes from that same starting point. Everyone agrees, it will result in fewer sharks.

Just because some citizens support the removal of the ban because they think it will result in a 'benefit' does not mean the removal of the ban itself is 'supporting an action as beneficial.'
User avatar
RudreshKal
User avatar
Joined: 27 Jul 2021
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 15
Own Kudos:
5
Given Kudos: 91
Posts: 15
Kudos: 5
Commercial shark fishing and shark hunting will resume in Diamond Bay 12 Oct 2023, 23:06
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mikemcgarry

I have gone through your explanations provided above and if you take 2nd BF as main conclusion of argument then Opt. B is inconsistent within itself.
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. If 2nd BF is MC then 1st BF is not evidence to support that.
I took main conclusion here to be commercial hunting of sharks will not increase endangered ecosystem then 2nd BF calls conclusion into question which is consistent.

I would like improve on this question type. So any tips on how to approach or pragmatic way ?
User avatar
sjmonroe
User avatar
Joined: 10 Oct 2025
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 4
Given Kudos: 4
Posts: 4
Kudos: 0
Commercial shark fishing and shark hunting will resume in Diamond Bay 24 Oct 2025, 07:11
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Can you give more explanation as to why E is out? I am confused how "supporting an action as beneficial" means the first BF is a conclusion.

mikemcgarry

Dear tuanquang269,
I'm happy to respond! :-) I am the author of this question. It warms the cockles of my heart to see one of my questions reposted here. :-)

The first BF statement is just a fact, a piece of evidence. This piece of evidence seems to support the conclusion of the citizen (down with shark, up with small fish).

The prompt goes on to point out that the ecologist disagree, and reach the contrary conclusion, which is the second BF.

From the prompt we gather that the "citizens" are uninformed speculators, with no particular expertise, but the "ecologists" are trained professions who understand the species in Diamond Bay very well. The ecologist conclusion is the main conclusion of the argument.

So, the second BF is clearly the main conclusion of the argument. (A) and (C) are out.

Also, notice, the first BF, by itself, is simply factual, simply evidence. It might support some conclusion, but it is not a conclusion in itself. (D) and (E) are out.

This leaves (B).
The first BF is a piece of evidence that was taken to support the citizens's conclusion. The second BF is contrary to the citizen's conclusion and is the main conclusion of the entire argument. (B) is correct.

Does this make sense?
Mike :-)
Show more
User avatar
Sajjad1994
User avatar
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Last visit: 20 Nov 2025
Posts: 17,306
Own Kudos:
49,323
Given Kudos: 6,180
GPA: 3.62
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Posts: 17,306
Kudos: 49,323
Commercial shark fishing and shark hunting will resume in Diamond Bay 24 Oct 2025, 11:18
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
sjmonroe
Can you give more explanation as to why E is out? I am confused how "supporting an action as beneficial" means the first BF is a conclusion.
Show more

Hello sjmonroe

Personally i dislike this question but here is a possible reason why the author might strike E out.

According to the author the first quote = the event that citizens treat as supporting their conclusion and second quote = the ecologists’ counter-conclusion (which is the main conclusion of the argument).

But the second quote is not itself the conclusion it’s support for the conclusion. The ecologists’ conclusion is implicit: “Therefore, shark fishing will harm the endangered fish.” The second quote is the causal chain supporting that.

The author must be interpreting:

First: “Commercial shark fishing will resume” this is the evidence (the situation) citizens use to support their conclusion that it’s good.
Second: “A decrease in sharks will lead to a surge in Sea Lions...” they treat this as the main conclusion of the argument (but it’s actually a premise for the main conclusion that it will harm the fish).

So it is possible the author is defining “conclusion” loosely as the ecologists’ main point.
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
miag
189 posts