GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 20 Sep 2018, 23:06

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

Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 12 Mar 2017
Posts: 45
Re: Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game  [#permalink]

Show Tags

28 Jul 2017, 09:35
Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game Authority would have the public believe that increases in the number of marine fish caught demonstrate that this resource is no longer endangered. This is a specious argument, as unsound as it would be to assert that the ever-increasing rate at which rain forests are being cut down demonstrates a lack of danger to that resource. The real cause of the increased fish-catch is a greater efficiency in using technologies that deplete resources.

The environmentalist's statements, if true, best support which of the following as a conclusion?

(A) The use of technology is the reason for the increasing encroachment of people on nature.
" On nature ". We do not know that yet. We have been only told about fishes in particular which is one part of nature.

(8) It is possible to determine how many fish are in the sea in some way other than by catching fish.
We are not concerned about how to count no. of fishes here.

(C) The proportion of marine fish that are caught is as high as the proportion of rain forest trees that are cut down each year.
[color=#ffff00]No real numbers have been given for the proportions to be compared.[/color]

(D) Modern technologies waste resources by catching inedible fish.
We can't really comment on that.

(E) Marine fish continue to be an endangered resource.
After all the POE, this statement is safe.
Manager
Joined: 10 Apr 2015
Posts: 195
GPA: 3.31
Re: Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game  [#permalink]

Show Tags

12 Aug 2017, 20:51
Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game Authority would have the public believe that increases in the number of marine fish caught demonstrate that this resource is no longer endangered. This is a specious argument, as unsound as it would be to assert that the ever-increasing rate at which rain forests are being cut down demonstrates a lack of danger to that resource. The real cause of the increased fish-catch is a greater efficiency in using technologies that deplete resources.

The environmentalist's statements, if true, best support which of the following as a conclusion?

(A) The use of technology is the reason for the increasing encroachment of people on nature.
(8) It is possible to determine how many fish are in the sea in some way other than by catching fish.
(C) The proportion of marine fish that are caught is as high as the proportion of rain forest trees that are cut down each year.
(D) Modern technologies waste resources by catching inedible fish.
(E) Marine fish continue to be an endangered resource.

According to the environmentalist, "increases in the number of marine fish caught" is because of "greater efficiency in using technologies that deplete resources", NOT "Marine fish is available in plenty"

Environmentalist conclude - "The real cause of the increased fish-catch is a greater efficiency in using technologies that deplete resources."

So, " Marine fish continue to be an endangered resource."

Clear E.
_________________

In case you find my posts helpful, give me Kudos. Thank you.

Manager
Joined: 28 Jun 2015
Posts: 90
Location: Australia
Re: Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game  [#permalink]

Show Tags

20 Sep 2017, 20:32
Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game Authority would have the public believe that increases in the number of marine fish caught demonstrate that this resource is no longer endangered. This is a specious argument, as unsound as it would be to assert that the ever-increasing rate at which rain forests are being cut down demonstrates a lack of danger to that resource. The real cause of the increased fish-catch is a greater efficiency in using technologies that deplete resources.

The environmentalist's statements, if true, best support which of the following as a conclusion?

(A) The use of technology is the reason for the increasing encroachment of people on nature. - Incorrect - Exaggerated Ans
(8) It is possible to determine how many fish are in the sea in some way other than by catching fish. - Incorrect - New info
(C) The proportion of marine fish that are caught is as high as the proportion of rain forest trees that are cut down each year. - Incorrect - Exaggerated Ans
(D) Modern technologies waste resources by catching inedible fish. Incorrect - New info
(E) Marine fish continue to be an endangered resource. - Correct - Combination Info: "resource is no longer endangered" + "This is a specious argument"
SVP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1794
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
Re: Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game  [#permalink]

Show Tags

22 Nov 2017, 16:49
stuck with A and E.
Details in the passage will distract test takers from the main points, so besides critical thinking, ignoring unimportant details is an useful skill.

"increases in the number of marine fish caught demonstrate that this resource is no longer endangered. This is a specious argument, as unsound " -> eliminate A.
Manager
Joined: 02 Aug 2017
Posts: 69
Concentration: Strategy, Nonprofit
Schools: ISB '20
GPA: 3.71
Re: Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game  [#permalink]

Show Tags

26 Jul 2018, 06:38
The commissioner of the Fish and Game Authority would have the public believe that increases in the number of marine fish caught demonstrate that this resource is no longer endangered.

What does this sentence mean? In what respect "would have" is used?

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

Everything is in flux, nothing stays still

MGMAT1 :590 Q42 V30 (07/07/18)
VERITAS :660 Q48 V33 (16/07/18)
GMATPREP1 :690 Q46 V36 (22/07/18)
GMATPREP2 :740 Q51 V39 (06/08/18)
ECONOMIST :740 Q49 V44 (11/08/18)
KAPLAN :690 Q49 V36 (17/08/18)
PRINCETON :690 Q48 V38 (26/08/18)
MGMAT2 :720 Q43 V45 (02/09/18)

Re: Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game &nbs [#permalink] 26 Jul 2018, 06:38

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 25 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Events & Promotions

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.