Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game Authority

Question

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. Which of the following strategies is used in the presentation of the environmentalist's position? A. Questioning the motives of an opponent B. Showing that an opposing position is self-contradictory C. Attacking an argument through the use of an analogy D. Demonstrating the inaccuracy of certain data E. Pointing out adverse consequences of a proposal Same premise, different question is located here: environmentalist-the-commissioner-of-the-fish-and-game-88326.html

AndrewN · Accepted Answer

Hello,  anumnit90 . Thank you for drawing attention to this question. I would be happy to offer my thoughts on it in an effort to help you and the rest of the GMAT Club community. First, the passage:

What is going on here? I often find it useful to interpret these long-winded sentences in a simpler manner, sentence by sentence, as if you were hoping to explain the passage to a child. Here,

1)  The commissioner  is leading the public to believe that, in a nutshell,  an increasing rate of fish caught equals a less endangered status for the fish .

2) Even if you are unsure about the word  specious , jumping across that comma to  unsound  ought to reveal that the author of the passage,  the environmentalist ,  disagrees  with the view of the commissioner.

3) We then get an illustration (without peering ahead at the answer choices):  an increasing rate of rainforests cut down equals a less endangered status for the rainforests .

4) Finally, the author proposes  the real cause of the increased fish-catch : technology. In other words, the author believes that the increased fish-catch is not attributable to a greater number of fish, as the commissioner has put forth.

Now that we understand the passage, we can take a look at the question and answer choices.

The question is asking us to evaluate  how  the author--again, the environmentalist--presents his or her own position in the passage. I would not waste a lot of time brainstorming possible ideas, but I would go into the answer choices instead with an eye on  disproving  anything that was clearly off the mark.

Analysis: Although the environmentalist clearly does not see eye to eye with the commissioner, nowhere do I see anything about  motives . I would expect to see some information about kickbacks from fishermen or the commissioner wanting to raise funds for some purpose by granting more fishing permits,  anything  that would implicate the commissioner. But all we have to lean on is poor reasoning, or, in the words of the environmentalist,  a specious argument . We never get a glimpse into the  why  behind the  what .  Red light.

Analysis: This can be a tempting choice, since the position of the commissioner is definitely such  an opposing position . Is the position  self-contradictory , though? This makes me think of  an old Monty Python sketch  in which a... hunter of sorts states, "I love animals. That's why I like to kill 'em." Now  that  is self-contradictory, and if you appreciate dry British humor, you can have a laugh, too. In this passage, though, the commissioner does not hold an opinion that works against itself logically. For all we know, it  could  be true that the fish population has increased and that the fish could be  no longer endangered . It is clear that the environmentalist would disagree with the  view , but I cannot find anything to put my finger on that would indicate the author would call the position itself self-contradictory. If you were unsure at this point, just set the answer aside and look for more obvious targets.  Yellow light.

Analysis: Does the environmentalist  attack  the argument of the commissioner? I think so. You might consider a less forceful word or phrase such as  opposing  or  disagreeing with , but the two positions outlined in the passage are at loggerheads with each other, and to me, the environmentalist seems pretty heated. Is there  an analogy  present? Of course there is. The argument, A, is  as unsound as  B. Comparing the two arguments in such a manner is an analogy. I cannot find a flaw in this answer choice.  Green light.

Analysis: It should be evident that we have no such  data  to examine, nor does the author reference such data. Rather, a vague  number of  in the first sentence is about as close as we get.  Red light.

Analysis: Am I missing something here? What was proposed, and where does the passage focus on  consequences ? If you look at the last sentence again, the author even asserts,  The real  cause  of... . Thus, the  cause  is under examination or debate, not any outcome. And if you can find a proposal lurking somewhere in the passage, please open my eyes.  Red light.

This was a fun question, and any time I can invoke a comedy show or sketch and make it applicable, so much the better. If you have any questions, please let me know. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew

anumnit90 · Answer

Could somebody please explain the solution...
Thanks in advance!!

egmat · Answer

Solution

Passage Analysis

Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game Authority would have the public believe that
 The author is an environmentalist. S/he claims that the authority to control hunting and fishing is apparently giving a certain image regarding this topic to the public.
 
increases in the number of marine fish caught demonstrate that this resource is no longer endangered.
 The image is that the increase in the number of sea fish being caught is an indication that shows that these fish are no longer at the brink of extinction .

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.
 This argument may look sensible at first; but it is not. (If you don't know the meaning of specious, that is okay. From the following sentence you can infer that the word has a negative connotation. That's good enough!)
It is like saying cutting down rainforests at an increasing rate indicates that these rainforests are not in danger anymore. The example helps to understand why the argument is not valid .

The real cause of the increased fish-catch is a greater efficiency in using technologies that deplete resources.
 The environmentalist goes on to claim that the real cause for getting more marine fish these days is the higher efficiency of the newer equipment. This kind of technology exhausts the available resources.

Question Stem:
 
Which of the following strategies is used in the presentation of the environmentalist's position?
 The instrument used by the author to illustrate his/her stand is the question.

Prethinking

The environmentalist is clearly against the stand of the Fish and Game Authority. The author opposes the image given to the public calling it a specious claim and presents an analogy to prove that point. Then the real reason for more fish being caught, according to the author, is also presented. So we can see that the strategies of analogy and alternative causality are being employed by the environmentalist to prove the point.

Option Analysis

A. Questioning the motives of an opponent
 The motive of the authority is not discussed at all- Incorrect.

B. Showing that an opposing position is self-contradictory
 No self contradictions are involved; only specious reasoning. Hence incorrect.

C. Attacking an argument through the use of an analogy
 This can be found in the argument when rainforests are mentioned to show how the Authority's argument is specious. Hence this is the correct answer.

D. Demonstrating the inaccuracy of certain data
 There are no data points refuted in this passage. Incorrect.

E. Pointing out adverse consequences of a proposal
 The consequences are not discussed in the passage- Only the activity that may lead to consequences. Hence not applicable.

The correct answer is C.

ArnauG · Answer

The strategy used in the presentation of the environmentalist's position is:

C. Attacking an argument through the use of an analogy

The environmentalist draws a parallel between the commissioner's argument about the increased fish catch and the hypothetical assertion that an increasing rate of deforestation demonstrates a lack of danger to rain forests. By highlighting the flawed reasoning in the commissioner's argument through this analogy, the environmentalist aims to discredit the notion that increased fish catch indicates the absence of endangerment.

bronaugust · Answer

To solve this question, let us deploy  IMS's four-step technique .

STEP #1   ->  IDENTIFY THE QUESTION TYPE

Let us read the question stem to identify the question type.
 
The stem indicates a  method of reasoning  question.

STEP #2   ->  X-RAY THE PASSAGE

Let us now read and understand the passage.
 
We notice that the environmentalist calls the argument of the commissioner specious. 'Specious' means 'apparently true but actually false'. Simply put, the environmentalist calls the argument of the commissioner false. Furthermore, the environmentalist also calls the reasoning of the commissioner unsound by drawing an analogy. He then says that the real cause of the increased fish-catch is a greater efficiency in using technologies that deplete resources.

Now that the argument is x-rayed, let us proceed to the third step.

STEP #3   ->  FRAME A SHADOW ANSWER

In order to frame a shadow answer, we need to know what the right answer should do. In this question, the correct answer should state the strategy used by the environmentalist while presenting his position. From the second step we have executed, we know the environmentalist draws an analogy to counter the claim of the commissioner. Basically, the environmentalist's thought-process is this: Just as it would be unsound to assert that the ever-increasing rate at which rain forests are being cut down demonstrates a lack of danger to that resource, so too would it be illogical to claim that increases in the number of marine fish caught demonstrate that this resource is no longer endangered. By drawing this rainforest analogy, the environmentalist clearly challenges the commissioner's argument.

SHADOW ANSWER:  An option that indicates that the author's strategy involved the drawing of an analogy while presenting his position.

Now that we have a shadow answer, let us proceed to the final step.

STEP #4   ->  PROCESS OF ELIMINATION

Let us eliminate all answer options that do not match the shadow answer.

A. Questioning the motives of an opponent -  NOT A MATCH  -  While the commissioner may have a different motive, we do not know from the passage whether his claim indicates an ulterior motive. Importantly, the environmentalist does not speak of the commissioner's motives, let alone question them.  -  ELIMINATE

B. Showing that an opposing position is self-contradictory -  NOT A MATCH  -  The environmentalist does not present any self-contradiction in the commissioner's position.  -  ELIMINATE

C. Attacking an argument through the use of an analogy -  MATCHES THE SHADOW ANSWER  -  Based on the shadow answer we have, this is our best bet.  -  KEEP

D. Demonstrating the inaccuracy of certain data -  NOT A MATCH  -  The environmentalist calls the argument of the commissioner specious, but does not demonstrate the inaccuracy of any data.  -  ELIMINATE

E. Pointing out adverse consequences of a proposal -  NOT A MATCH  -  There is no proposal spoken of in the first place.  -  ELIMINATE

Hence, (C) is the right answer.

Auro411 · Answer

Let's decode the stem: Always look at the structure, which means how the argument is built in this case.

Stem : The commissioner believes that an increase in fish caught demonstrates that this resource is not endangered, but this argument is flawed and is attacked when compared with the analogy of the rainforest. It is considered a specious argument, which means the argument looks clean at first, but it is flawed, illogical, etc. The real cause was the efficiency of machines for the increase in fish caught, which can lead to depletion and not the other one.

Pre Think: The strategy used by the argument is using analogy to attack the argument.

Let's look at options and eliminate:

(A) First of all, no motives are questioned in the argument, and no mention of an opponent is there, which makes this choice completely false, and it is more of a half-right, half-wrong answer.

(B) Again, there is no mention of an opposing position, which makes this option irrelevant. Eliminate

(C) This matches the pre-think, attacking the commissioner's argument of an increase in fish through analogy of the rainforest, which makes this option a  CONTENDER.

(D) No, there is nothing mentioned about inaccuracy in the data, which makes this option out of scope. Eliminate this.

(E) No, there is nothing mentioned about adverse consequences of a proposal. And more than that, the cause is the talking point of the argument. Eliminate

Hence, the answer option is  C  without doubt.

Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game Authority

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game Authority

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards