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

 It is currently 20 Sep 2018, 21:21

### 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

Manager
Joined: 22 Jul 2009
Posts: 170
Location: Manchester UK
Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Dec 2009, 13:17
10
38
00:00

Difficulty:

35% (medium)

Question Stats:

71% (01:19) correct 29% (01:38) wrong based on 3354 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.

OG2017 CR645 P540
Intern
Joined: 18 Oct 2009
Posts: 8
Re: Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Dec 2009, 16:41
8
1
1
Looking at the paragraph as a whole, the main focus is more on marine fish then anything else. It says that "The commissioner...would have the public believe that increases in the number of marine fish caught demonstrate that this resource is no longer endangered." Already, this is an indication that the marine fish may be endangered. The environmentalist uses rainforests as an example to get this point across. He says that the rainforest is being cut down at an increasing rate, but that doesn't mean that it is not in danger. In parallel to marine fish, the environmentalist is trying to say that just because marine fish are being caught in increasing numbers does not mean that it is not in danger. Lastly, an alternate cause for the high number of fish caught is given---there are a lot of marine fish caught, not because they are plenty in number (not endangered), but because technology has become more efficient in catching them.

(A) At a first quick glance, some people might keep it, but it is very weak since the focus is on marine fish and the question of being endangered.

(B) This is out of scope.

(C) There is nothing to support whether the two proportions are the same or not. This is not the main point of the paragraph. You'd have to ask yourself: Is this paragraph about how technology wastes resources by catching fish people can't eat? Definitely not.

(D) This is out of scope.

(E) Correct. I think this is exactly what the paragraph is saying.

A conclusion should support every sentence in the paragraph and (E) does that.
##### General Discussion
Intern
Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 43
Re: Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Dec 2009, 19:46
1
_________________

A kudos would greatly help

Tuhin

Manager
Joined: 22 Jul 2009
Posts: 170
Location: Manchester UK
Re: Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Dec 2009, 02:33
I am still not finding it convincing. Environmentalist counter acts stating that marine fish are in danger of extintion then how come E can be the answer?

Whatever explanation you have provided that also goes in sync with my thought process but still i am not convinced for E can you please explain me in different way.
Manager
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 137
Location: Streamwood IL
Schools: Kellogg(Evening),Booth (Evening)
WE 1: 5 Years
Re: Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Dec 2009, 10:49
2
Fact1 (commissioner)
increases in the number of marine fish caught demonstrate that this resource is no longer endangered.
Fact2 (Environmentalist counters Fact1 with an analogy) 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.
Fact 3 (Environmentalist ) The real cause of the increased fish-catch is a greater efficiency in using technologies that deplete resources.

In Fact 3 the author provides a alternate theory to the increased fish-catch, hence he argues against the the commissioner's claim that the fish are not endangered.

Question - The environmentalist's statements, if true, best support which of the following as a conclusion? Fact1 is wrong Fact 2 & 3 is right, with this the conclusion given in choice E can safely be drawn.
_________________

Rock On

Manager
Joined: 22 Jul 2009
Posts: 170
Location: Manchester UK
Re: Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Dec 2009, 12:13
Sorry my mistake...i get it now...
Director
Joined: 21 Dec 2010
Posts: 514
Re: Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Apr 2011, 09:17
_________________

What is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy.

Intern
Joined: 30 Sep 2012
Posts: 12
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V32
Re: Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Sep 2012, 02:55
6
2
Question Stem
The environmentalist's statements, if true, best support which of the following as a conclusion?
Inference Question - So the answer MUST BE TRUE.

Argument
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.

Pre-thinking
Marine Fish is endangered

(A) The use of technology is the reason for the increasing encroachment of people on nature.
INCORRECT ANSWER - Fish and Forests is not equal to nature. There are many other things that are a part of nature. So we can make this generalization

(B) It is possible to determine how many fish are in the sea in some way other than by catching fish.
INCORRECT ANSWER - Nothing in the passage suggests that there is a method to determine the fish in the sea.

(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 ANSWER - The comparison between proportion of fish and rain forest trees is irrelevant. Nothing in the passage suggest this.

(D) Modern technologies waste resources by catching inedible fish.
INCORRECT ANSWER - Inedible Fish - This is outside the scope of the argument

(E) Marine fish continue to be an endangered resource.
CORRECT ANSWER - "specious argument" tells us that commissioner is not right and that marine fish still continue to be an endangered resource.
_________________

Regards,
gmatsuperstar

Senior Manager
Joined: 28 Dec 2010
Posts: 289
Location: India
Re: Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 May 2013, 10:34
I am one of those who was confused between B&E and incorrectly chose B. I now realize B is perhaps more of an assumption rather than a conclusion. Option E follows from the stimuli presented.
Intern
Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Posts: 19
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Marketing
Re: Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Jun 2013, 09:46
The Environ. gives all the reasons and concludes that 'The commissioners argument about the resources being safe and large in number is 'specious' or in other words...the marine fishes are endangered.

Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Oct 2012
Posts: 334
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Operations
GMAT 1: 660 Q47 V35
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V38
GPA: 3.81
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Aug 2013, 07:26
1
Hi Guys,

Sorry to bring this thread alive again. But I was re-doing the CR questions from Og-12 and I got to this question.
While I know the answer E is correct for its definite reasons, I was kinda stuck with A here and was thinking of a definite way to rule it out. I see that A talks about: the use of technology being "the" reason of increasing encroachment of people on nature. I think A goes a little far ahead with this proposition. Also Environmentalists' main idea was the marine fishes and not the encroachment of nature.

Just wanted to bring this up and see what are the different reasons to rule out A.
_________________

Citius, Altius, Fortius

Manager
Joined: 17 Jul 2013
Posts: 85
Re: Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Jun 2014, 22:01
1
vabhs192003 wrote:
Hi Guys,

Sorry to bring this thread alive again. But I was re-doing the CR questions from Og-12 and I got to this question.
While I know the answer E is correct for its definite reasons, I was kinda stuck with A here and was thinking of a definite way to rule it out. I see that A talks about: the use of technology being "the" reason of increasing encroachment of people on nature. I think A goes a little far ahead with this proposition. Also Environmentalists' main idea was the marine fishes and not the encroachment of nature.

Just wanted to bring this up and see what are the different reasons to rule out A.

I agree with your reasoning ... since encroachment is totally different concern .. he is actually drawing a relation between the deletion of the fish resource and the rain forest ... here the author is not pointing to the process they follow such as encroachment, using net etc ...
Manager
Joined: 07 Apr 2014
Posts: 115
Re: Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Sep 2014, 10:33
sagarsabnis wrote:
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.

Again not satisfied with the explanation from OG please can some one try?

main point is environmentalist is against commissioner..

commisioner - number of marine fish caught demonstrate that this resource is no longer endangered
Environmentalist - opposite ..

option A is quite appealing but "increasing encroachment of people on nature" is very generic whereas topic talks only about fish & forest.
Affiliations: Oracle certified java programmer , adobe certified developer
Joined: 14 Jul 2013
Posts: 83
GMAT Date: 02-12-2015
GPA: 3.87
WE: Programming (Telecommunications)
Re: Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Oct 2014, 09:36
E) Marine fish continue to be an endangered resource.
_________________

IF IT IS TO BE , IT IS UP TO ME

Director
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 549
Location: Germany
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 580 Q46 V24
GPA: 3.88
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Apr 2015, 05:49
The question stem has just misguided me.....The environmentalist's statements, if true, best support which of the following as a conclusion?
The quetion says that the conclusion is alreadyy statd above ( ...as a conclusion) and we are looking for a premise... BUT (E) is a conclusion itself..
can someone help on this one...
_________________

When you’re up, your friends know who you are. When you’re down, you know who your friends are.

800Score ONLY QUANT CAT1 51, CAT2 50, CAT3 50
GMAT PREP 670
MGMAT CAT 630
KAPLAN CAT 660

Intern
Joined: 24 Oct 2014
Posts: 19
Re: Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Jul 2015, 02:42
luckyme17187 wrote:
sagarsabnis wrote:
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.

Again not satisfied with the explanation from OG please can some one try?

main point is environmentalist is against commissioner..

commisioner - number of marine fish caught demonstrate that this resource is no longer endangered
Environmentalist - opposite ..

option A is quite appealing but "increasing encroachment of people on nature" is very generic whereas topic talks only about fish & forest.

Even I was confused between A and E. I totally get it if someone says that both A and E are correct, just that E is more related to the question, and therefore a better answer choice.

But for no other reason, can I understand why A could not be a possible correct answer. In absence of E, would someone say that A is still incorrect?
SVP
Joined: 06 Nov 2014
Posts: 1887
Re: Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2015, 17:35
1
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. Technology is only referred to in the case of the marine fish.
(B) It is possible to determine how many fish are in the sea in some way other than by catching fish.not supported
(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.A comparison is made but no numbers are given.
(D) Modern technologies waste resources by catching inedible fish.not supported
(E) Marine fish continue to be an endangered resource. The author refutes the claim that the increased numbers demonstrates that the "resource is no longer endangered."
Intern
Joined: 08 Dec 2016
Posts: 39

### Show Tags

26 Jun 2017, 06:52
TAKE AWAY: in a "must be true question" choice the answer that restate the main conclusion - in this case "this is a specious argument". Therefore E is the answer choice

Posted from my mobile device
VP
Status: Learning
Joined: 20 Dec 2015
Posts: 1186
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V36
GRE 1: Q157 V157
GPA: 3.4
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Jun 2017, 07:19
Premise 1 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.
Premise 2 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
Premise 3 The real cause of the increased fish-catch is a greater efficiency in using technologies that deplete resources.
Now for we know from 1 that the claims of the commissioner are specious and canard .
From 2 we have an analogy to show the fallacy of the argument put forth by commissioner .
From 3 We know the real reason behind the increase in cached fish .
Only E follows from the 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

30 Jun 2017, 00:13
see? there is a big difference between a conclusion and an inference question. The latter requires what must be true as a result of deduction from the passage. (can be a detail)
Re: Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game &nbs [#permalink] 30 Jun 2017, 00:13

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 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®.