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

It is currently 21 Jan 2019, 05:45

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel
Events & Promotions in January
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
303112345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829303112
Open Detailed Calendar
  • GMAT Club Tests are Free & Open for Martin Luther King Jr.'s Birthday!

     January 21, 2019

     January 21, 2019

     10:00 PM PST

     11:00 PM PST

    Mark your calendars - All GMAT Club Tests are free and open January 21st for celebrate Martin Luther King Jr.'s Birthday.
  • The winners of the GMAT game show

     January 22, 2019

     January 22, 2019

     10:00 PM PST

     11:00 PM PST

    In case you didn’t notice, we recently held the 1st ever GMAT game show and it was awesome! See who won a full GMAT course, and register to the next one.

Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game Authority woul

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

 
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 Jul 2009
Posts: 143
Location: Manchester UK
Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game Authority woul  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 21 Nov 2018, 06:27
11
47
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  35% (medium)

Question Stats:

71% (01:17) correct 29% (01:34) wrong based on 3774 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.

(B) 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

Originally posted by sagarsabnis on 22 Dec 2009, 12:17.
Last edited by Bunuel on 21 Nov 2018, 06:27, edited 1 time in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
Most Helpful Community Reply
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 18 Oct 2009
Posts: 8
Re: Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game Authority woul  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Dec 2009, 15:41
9
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
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 130
Location: Streamwood IL
Schools: Kellogg(Evening),Booth (Evening)
WE 1: 5 Years
Re: Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game Authority woul  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Dec 2009, 09:49
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

Intern
Intern
avatar
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 Authority woul  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Sep 2012, 01:55
7
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

Answer Choices

(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
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 19 Oct 2012
Posts: 318
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 Authority woul  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Aug 2013, 06:26
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
Manager
avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2013
Posts: 80
Premium Member
Re: Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game Authority woul  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Jun 2014, 21:01
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 ...
SVP
SVP
avatar
B
Joined: 06 Nov 2014
Posts: 1877
Re: Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game Authority woul  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Jul 2015, 16:35
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
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 12 Mar 2017
Posts: 39
Re: Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game Authority woul  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Jul 2017, 08:35
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.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
P
Joined: 26 Jun 2017
Posts: 401
Location: Russian Federation
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
WE: Information Technology (Other)
Re: Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game Authority woul  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Nov 2018, 15:47
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.
It sounds good, but nowhere is said that this is the reason - it is speculation
(8) It is possible to determine how many fish are in the sea in some way other than by catching fish.
Nothing is said about it
(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.
We can not know it
(D) Modern technologies waste resources by catching inedible fish.
Totally out of scope
(E) Marine fish continue to be an endangered resource.
That's it. The environmentalist gives an analogy about forest that shows that commisioner says some kind of crap. And then tells about real cause for increased amount of caught fish
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game Authority woul &nbs [#permalink] 19 Nov 2018, 15:47
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game Authority woul

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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®.