The fishing industry cannot currently be relied upon to help the gover

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.

CONCLUSION : The government should therefore institute a program WHICH DOES X.

Breaking the argument: Basically what the argument is saying is the industry is not co-operating in counting the number of dead birds because if it does the government would restrict the net fishing, causing the industry some losses in its operation. The arguments suggests that the govt. institute a program which will do X(tissue samples from the dead birds are examined to determine the amount of toxins in the fish eaten by the birds) and that X would encourage the industry to turn in the bird carcasses as doing so will help the industry understand something which is of some benefit to them. Overall it suggests that we anyways need the help of the industry to count the dead birds by either one way or the other. If the industry is not helping the govt. where it doesn't see a benefit for itself then get the industry to help the govt. where it sees the benefit for itself. INEHERENTLY THE AUTHOR ASSUMES THAT WITHOUT THE HELP OF INDUSTRY THE GOVT. WILL NOT BE ABLE TO COUNT THE DEAD BIRDS. An option that specifies that will be our answer.

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. - Pretty much irrelevant to the argument as it doesn't help the conclusion that the govt. should launch a program in any way.

(B) The government has not in the past sought to determine whether fish were contaminated with toxins by examining tissue samples of seabirds. - Even if the govt. has maybe it was implemented maybe not. Doesn't help the argument.

(C) The government cannot gain an accurate count of the number of seabirds killed by net fishing unless the fishing industry cooperates. - CORRECT answer as it matches out pre-thinking. If it's possible for the govt. to get the number with the co-operation of industry there'd be no need for the govt. to institute the program.

(D) If the government knew that fish caught by the fishing industry were contaminated by toxins, the government would restrict net fishing. - Implied by the argument in the 2nd line as that might be the reason industry is not co-operating but we're not concerned about the reason. We're concerned with a statement which gives us a reason as to why should the govt. institute the program.

(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. - Not relevant as to what the industry does after the govt. has restricted the net fishing.

Please feel free to share the critical analysis of my post.

The passage starts off with a premise: The fishing industry cannot be relied upon...

A plan that would encourage the fishing industry to cooperate is then proposed by the government. The plan is that they will introduce a program under which tissue samples are examined to determine how much toxins are in fish eaten by birds.

Strengthener: C) The government cannot gain an accurate count of the number of seabirds killed by net fishing unless the fishing industry cooperates.

Note the conditional. Without cooperation from the fishing industry, the plan fails.

I would classify C) as a very mild strengthened. It's a conditional - so there's an element of uncertainty. It certainly doesn't prove that the plan will work.


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.
Show