Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game Authority woul

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.

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

egmat · Accepted 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: 
The environmentalist's statements, if true, best support which of the following as a conclusion?
 We need to infer the main idea that the environmentalist is trying to convey, which is the conclusion, provided all the given information is true.

Prethinking

The environmentalist is trying to use an analogy to prove that the authority's claim is invalid. S/he also provides the alternative actual reasoning. So the main concern of the author is to oppose the claim of the authority. The authority is making the public believe that the marine fish are no longer endangered pointing out an invalid reason. Hence the author's main conclusion should be that marine fish are still endangered creatures. He or she could also add that such indiscriminate fishing should be prevented.

Option Analysis

(A) The use of technology is the reason for the increasing encroachment of people on nature. 
The use of technology is not the focus of the passage. Hence this statement cannot be the main conclusion of this passage.
 
(B) It is possible to determine how many fish are in the sea in some way other than by catching fish. 
Determination of the exact size of fish population is not the concern of the author. What matters is whether they are endangered or not.
  
(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.
 The case of rainforests is provided only to illustrate how the authority's claim is invalid; no numerical correspondence is implied there. Hence this is an incorrect option.

(D) Modern technologies waste resources by catching inedible fish.
 The edibility of the fish is not mentioned in the passage at all. Also this passage is focused on natural resources rather than technological resources. Hence this cannot be the answe r.

(E) Marine fish continue to be an endangered resource.
 This statement is in line with our pre-thinking. Hence it forms the correct answer.

The answer is option E.

umangpatel03 · Answer

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.

atish · Answer

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.

gmatsuperstar · Answer

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.

TheMechanic · Answer

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.

GmatDestroyer2013 · Answer

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 ...

OptimusPrepJanielle · Answer

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."

EP2620 · Answer

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?

Okay this is an inference question. While I was able to figure out that option E was correct, I was stuck with option B for a while, so posting in case someone has a similar doubt in the future.

(B) It is possible to determine how many fish are in the sea in some way other than by catching fish.
  My interpretation of the statement was the following: the environmentalist seems to be claiming that marine fish is  still endangered  (option E). How can s/he say that without knowing how many fishes exist?  And how would s/he get to know that? Clearly, if catching fishes is not enough, there must be some other way to determine how many fish are in the sea.

The problem with my argument was that the environmentalist never addresses the underlined part in my reasoning, i.e. s/he never addresses numbers -- how many fishes were or are in the sea--and simply implies that they are endangered by giving an analogy followed by a justification of why more fishes might be caught now.

Dinesh654 · Answer

Hello experts,  ThatDudeKnows   ReedArnoldMPREP   AndrewN 
How to approach a conclusion question.
after reading the whole argument and the last sentence,

choice B strengthens the idea that technology do infact increase the chance of catching the fish--> thereby, suggesting that high no of fish caught could still mean that fish are endangered. because because high number doesn't mean fish are abundant, its just because of technology, people are more efficient in catching fish.

SO, B, It is possible to determine how many fish are in the sea in some way(technology implied) other than by catching fish.

So, B could be our conclusion.

MartyTargetTestPrep · Answer

The technology mentioned in the passage is "technologies that deplete resources." The implication is that the technologies are ones used for catching fish, not technologies that can be used to count fish. So, the passage doesn't mention any way other than by catching fish to determine how many fish are in the sea.

Thus, choice (B) isn't supported by the passage.

PriyamRathor · Answer

Hello Experts,

GMATNinja  ,  RonTargetTestPrep  ,  KarishmaB 
 MartyTargetTestPrep

Lets breakdown the stimulus:-

Environmentalist Claim:-

Increases in the number of marine fish caught demonstrate that this resource is no longer endangered

Authors Claim:-

The Environmentalist reasoning is Crap.
Author gives example of Rain Forests.
" Just because rain forests are being cut down at ever-increasing rate , we cannot conclude that there is lack of danger to rain forests resource. "
Author points out the real reason for increased fish- catch => "  Greater efficiency in using technologies that deplete resources "

Now,
I follow the POE process to answer CR questions.
I kept option A and E at bay. I easily eliminated options B C and D.

I went with A ,but the answer is E

I donot agree with Choice E.
Just because increases in the number of marine fish caught is not demonstrative that this resource is no longer endangered,
we cannot infer that Marine Fish continue to be an endangered resource.

Nowhere in the passage it has been mentioned that Marine Fish are endangered resource.

Also ,
Just the way ,
  No longer endangered is not equal to in abundance
Similarly
May be endangered is not equal to endangered. 
 
Please help me .

MartyTargetTestPrep · Answer

Hi PriyamRathor.

The passage begins by saying the following:

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.

The implication of that statement is that, if the commissioner's argument is not valid, then it is not the case that "this resource is no longer endangered." Rather, it is the case that "this resource," marine fish, IS endangered.

Then, the author goes on to show that the commissioner's argument is not valid.

Thus, what follows from the passage is what (E) says, " Marine fish continue to be an endangered resource."

KarishmaB · Answer

We cannot conclude a generic statement from a couple of specific examples. 
Say if I say "Crows fly" and "pigeons fly" so this means "all birds fly", is that acceptable? No, there could be some birds that don't fly. 
Similarly, we cannot conclude about the reason for encroachment on nature using the example of just fishing and rainforests. Hence (A) is certainly not supported.

As for (E), note the use of "this resource is no longer endangered" in the argument. If we say something is NO LONGER endangered, it means it was endangered before. The passage also tells us that "the real cause of the increased fish-catch is a greater efficiency in using technologies that deplete resources." The question stem tells us that the environmentalist's statements are true i.e. they are all premises. We are looking for a conclusion. 
Of the given options, the best supported one is that fish are still endangered. 
Answer (E)

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

Now that the question type is identified, let us proceed to the second step.

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. And what exactly is the argument of the commissioner? It is this: Increases in the number of marine fish caught demonstrate that this resource is no longer endangered. 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 a conclusion question, the correct answer simply links the unlinked words in the passage or summarizes the stated facts.

SHADOW ANSWER:   An option that either links the unlinked words in the passage or summarizes the stated facts.

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) The use of technology is the reason for the increasing encroachment of people on nature. -  NOT A MATCH  -  The passage does not deal with encroachment of people on nature.  -  ELIMINATE

(B) It is possible to determine how many fish are in the sea in some way other than by catching fish. -  NOT A MATCH  -  The passage does not concern itself whether it is possible to determine how many fish are in the sea.  -  ELIMINATE

(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. -  NOT A MATCH  -  The environmentalist drew an analogy by mentioning rain forests; there is no link between marine fish and rain forest trees nonetheless.  -  ELIMINATE

(D) Modern technologies waste resources by catching inedible fish. -  NOT A MATCH  -  The passage does not discuss edibility of fish or mention anything about it.  -  ELIMINATE

(E) Marine fish continue to be an endangered resource. -  MATCHES THE SHADOW ANSWER  -  The environmentalist calls the argument of the commissioner specious. That the increases in the number of marine fish caught demonstrate that this resource is no longer endangered is the commissioner's argument. The author however agrees that there is an increase in the number of marine fish caught. He, in fact, gives us a reason for the same: The real cause of the increased fish-catch is a greater efficiency in using technologies that deplete resources. Now, if the argument is false, but if there are increases in the number of marine fish caught, it obviously implies that the resource is endangered. This option, therefore, does a very good job of summarizing the passage.  -  MARK AND MOVE

Hence, (E) is the correct answer.

egmat · Answer

Let's work through this together - this type of question tests your ability to spot logical flaws and draw proper conclusions.

Understanding the Argument Structure:

Let me walk you through what's happening here. The environmentalist is essentially saying, "Hey, the commissioner's logic is completely backwards!" Let's see why:

Step 1: Identify the Commissioner's Flawed Logic 
The commissioner claims: More fish caught = Fish are no longer endangered
Think about this - if we're catching MORE fish, does that really mean there are MORE fish in the ocean? Not necessarily!

Step 2: The Rain Forest Analogy - Your Key to Understanding 
Notice how the environmentalist compares this to rain forests. If we cut down more trees each year, would you say forests are becoming less endangered? Of course not! That would be absurd. The environmentalist is showing us that the commissioner's reasoning is equally absurd.

Step 3: The Real Explanation - Technology 
Here's what you need to see: The increased catch isn't because there are more fish - it's because we've gotten  better at catching them . Think about it like this:
- Old fishing methods: Small nets, basic boats
- Modern technology: Sonar, GPS, massive nets
- Result: Same (or fewer) fish, but we catch more of them

Step 4: Drawing the Logical Conclusion 
So if the commissioner is wrong (higher catches don't mean less danger), and if technology is just making us more efficient at depleting the resource, what must be true? The fish population is still in danger, despite the increased catches.

That's why  Answer E  follows logically - "Marine fish continue to be an endangered resource."

The other answers either go too broad (A), add information not discussed (B and D), or misinterpret the analogy (C).

---

You can check out the  step-by-step solution on Neuron by e-GMAT  to master the systematic framework for handling analogy-based CR questions. You'll discover how to identify and evaluate parallel reasoning patterns that appear frequently on the GMAT. You can also explore other GMAT official questions with detailed solutions on Neuron for structured practice  here .

Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game Authority woul

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 woul

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