It is currently 19 Oct 2017, 08:04

# STARTING SOON:

Live Chat with Cornell Adcoms in Main Chat Room  |  R1 Interview Invites: MIT Sloan Chat  |  UCLA Anderson Chat  |  Duke Fuqua Chat (EA Decisions)

### 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 June
Open Detailed Calendar

# cr:fishing industry

Author Message
Manager
Joined: 22 Apr 2004
Posts: 156

Kudos [?]: 109 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

23 Nov 2005, 08:10
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

The fishing industry cannot currently be relied upon to help the government count the seabirds killed by net fishing, since an accurate count might result in restriction of net fishing. The government should therefore institute a program under which tissue samples from the dead birds are examined to determine the amount of toxins in the fish eaten by the birds. The industry would then have a reason to turn in the bird carcasses, since the industry needs to know whether the fish it catches are contaminated with toxins.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
(A) The seabirds that are killed by net fishing do not eat all of the species of fish caught by the fishing industry.
(B) The government has not in the past sought to determine whether fish were contaminated with toxins by examining tissue samples of seabirds.
(C) The government cannot gain an accurate count of the number of seabirds killed by net fishing unless the fishing industry cooperates.
(D) If the government knew that fish caught by the fishing industry were contaminated by toxins, the government would restrict net fishing.
(E) If net fishing were restricted by the government, then the fishing industry would become more inclined to reveal the number of seabirds killed by net fishing.

Kudos [?]: 109 [0], given: 0

Current Student
Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 5206

Kudos [?]: 434 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

23 Nov 2005, 08:33
Tricky CR. I got it down to between C and D. D seems to weaken the argument, so I`ll wager on C.

Kudos [?]: 434 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 1700

Kudos [?]: 473 [0], given: 0

Location: Dhaka

### Show Tags

23 Nov 2005, 14:38
got C.
_________________

hey ya......

Kudos [?]: 473 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 05 Nov 2005
Posts: 223

Kudos [?]: 97 [0], given: 0

Location: Germany

### Show Tags

23 Nov 2005, 14:59
Altough C sounds like an assumption I would choose C

Kudos [?]: 97 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 498

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

24 Nov 2005, 04:27
Good Q. I vote for 'C'.

Using POE.
A - Does not strengthen
B - Out of Scope.
C - Assumption.
E - Cannot be inferred.

C only looks correct.

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 22 Apr 2004
Posts: 156

Kudos [?]: 109 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 Nov 2005, 08:23
OA is C

Kudos [?]: 109 [0], given: 0

26 Nov 2005, 08:23
Display posts from previous: Sort by