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

It is currently 15 Nov 2018, 23:41

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 November
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
28293031123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
2526272829301
Open Detailed Calendar
  • Free GMAT Strategy Webinar

     November 17, 2018

     November 17, 2018

     07:00 AM PST

     09:00 AM PST

    Nov. 17, 7 AM PST. Aiming to score 760+? Attend this FREE session to learn how to Define your GMAT Strategy, Create your Study Plan and Master the Core Skills to excel on the GMAT.
  • GMATbuster's Weekly GMAT Quant Quiz # 9

     November 17, 2018

     November 17, 2018

     09:00 AM PST

     11:00 AM PST

    Join the Quiz Saturday November 17th, 9 AM PST. The Quiz will last approximately 2 hours. Make sure you are on time or you will be at a disadvantage.

In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from

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

Hide Tags

Director
Director
User avatar
B
Joined: 03 Feb 2013
Posts: 859
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V44
GPA: 3.88
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Reviews Badge
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 May 2014, 09:40
A. The illegal lobster harvesting was not so extensive that the population of catchable lobsters in Belukia’s territorial waters had sharply declined by 1996.
If this is negated, the argument falls apart - Hence A) If it has declined the argument that the gap of annual catch between 1992 and 1996 can be attributed to illegal catch.

B. The average annual lobster catch, in tons, of an outlaw fishing boat has increased steadily since 1992. -Out of scope as we are talking about the 1996 illegal catching of lobsters.

C. Outlaw fishing boats do not, as a group, harvest more lobsters than do licensed lobster-fishing boats. - We are not comparing the legal and illegal catch

D. The annual legal lobster harvest in Belukia in 1996 was not significantly less than 9,000 tons. - Lets say it is 4k tons. The argument doesn't break or support the argument.

E. A significant proportion of Belukia’s operators of licensed lobster-fishing boats went out of business between 1992 and 1996. - it doesn't affect the argument as per the premise - "despite there being no reduction in the level of legal lobster fishing activity"

I pick A)
_________________

Thanks,
Kinjal
My Debrief : http://gmatclub.com/forum/hardwork-never-gets-unrewarded-for-ever-189267.html#p1449379
My Application Experience : http://gmatclub.com/forum/hardwork-never-gets-unrewarded-for-ever-189267-40.html#p1516961
Linkedin : https://www.linkedin.com/in/kinjal-das/

Please click on Kudos, if you think the post is helpful

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Posts: 746
Concentration: General Management, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 680 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.7
WE: Information Technology (Investment Banking)
Premium Member
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Aug 2014, 20:59
Hi e-gmat,

I am not able to get this one.

(A). says that the illegal harvesting was not so extensive that the population of catchable lobsters declined by 1996.

Conclusion: Attributes 9000 fall to illegal harvesting.

Even if I negate (A) that illegal harvesting was so extensive that the population of catchable lobsters declined by 1996.

That is what we are arguing in conclusion that illegal harvesting is the cause for the figure 9000 fall in 1996.

Plz advise

Source: GMATPrep
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 16 Aug 2014
Posts: 9
Schools: Oxford"18 (D)
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Feb 2015, 21:01
Archit143 wrote:
Superb question , To answer this, full proof reading of the argument is reqd.

despite there being no reduction in the level of legal lobster fishing activity, the local catch was 9,000 tons below pre-1992 levels. It is therefore highly likely that the outlaw fishing boats harvested about 9,000 tons of lobster illegally that year.

The highlighted part of the argument implies that despite extensive legal lobster harvesting the number fell only to 9000, that means the author was expecting it to fall by a huge margin.......Hence, the illegal harvesters did not do much damage to the lobsters population, that is the reason, why, even after extensive harvesting the number fell just to 9000

Hence the answer must be A!!!

Consider Kudos if my post helps!!!

Archit


your proof reading is simply wrong..surprised to see some likes :)
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 17 Sep 2013
Posts: 29
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Feb 2015, 07:32
1
The conclusion of the argument is that the outlaw fishing boats are highly likely to harvest about 9,000 tons of lobsters in Belukian waters in 1996.
The basis for this claim is that:
1. In 1992, outlaw fishing boats started to harvest lobsters in this area
2. After that, the annual volume harvested of lobsters declined.
3. In 1996, the annual volume harvested of legal fishing boats declined by 9,000 tons in comparison to the pre-1992 levels.
4. In 1996, the legal fishing activity is not reduced.
Then the writer must assume that the total volume of lobsters which can be harvested in 1996 is about the same as in pre-1992.
A - CORRECT. If it's true, then there is another reason why the level of lobsters harvested by the legal fishing boats have declined by 9,000.
B - This has no impact on the conclusion.
C - This has no impact on the conclusion.
D - Not relevant
E - Out of scope.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 11 Oct 2013
Posts: 106
Concentration: Marketing, General Management
GMAT 1: 600 Q41 V31
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Nov 2015, 07:20
1
A. The illegal lobster harvesting was not so extensive that the population of catchable lobsters in Belukia’s territorial waters had sharply declined by 1996.

Note: Cachable doesn't mean catched lobsters. Option is talking about total population from which both legal and illegal catches are executed.
So, if legal harvesters couldn't get them, who got them? That's right! --> Illegal Harvesters.

Answer Choice A is correct.

This was a tough nut for me to crack. Alternatively, I would rather solve it by elimination.

B. The average annual lobster catch, in tons, of an outlaw fishing boat has increased steadily since 1992.
Whats steadily? Like 1 ton per year? Would that be enough! NO!

C. Outlaw fishing boats do not, as a group, harvest more lobsters than do licensed lobster-fishing boats.
Again! Harvest how much more? No information!

D. The annual legal lobster harvest in Belukia in 1996 was not significantly less than 9,000 tons.
Argument is comparing the difference. Not absolute values of the catch.

E. A significant proportion of Belukia’s operators of licensed lobster-fishing boats went out of business between 1992 and 1996. I fell them, but this makes no difference.

And we are left with A.
_________________

Its not over..

Intern
Intern
User avatar
B
Joined: 14 Jun 2013
Posts: 28
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Dec 2015, 02:54
1
bsv180985 wrote:
In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from the territorial waters of the country of Belukia. Soon after, the annual tonnage of lobster legally harvested in Belukian waters began declining; in 1996, despite there being no reduction in the level of legal lobster fishing activity, the local catch was 9,000 tons below pre-1992 levels. It is therefore highly likely that the outlaw fishing boats harvested about 9,000 tons of lobster illegally that year.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. The illegal lobster harvesting was not so extensive that the population of catchable lobsters in Belukia’s territorial waters had sharply declined by 1996.
B. The average annual lobster catch, in tons, of an outlaw fishing boat has increased steadily since 1992.
C. Outlaw fishing boats do not, as a group, harvest more lobsters than do licensed lobster-fishing boats.
D. The annual legal lobster harvest in Belukia in 1996 was not significantly less than 9,000 tons.
E. A significant proportion of Belukia’s operators of licensed lobster-fishing boats went out of business between 1992 and 1996.



Hi @Egmat@

Although I selected the Choice A, as this is the only option that I found alright, I am not able to understand the argument AT ALL.
Please somebody help me understand the argument.
Does it mean that

Before 1992......> Total local catch = legal catch
1992-------------> local catch = illegal +legal
1996................> same

then in 1996, the legal catch was same, total local catch was below 1992 levels by 9000.
so, in 1996, illegal catch must be 9000.
So....if we say that x is the legal catch which has not changed, in 1992, catch was 18000+x...
so what next?? I am lost..
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 17 Aug 2015
Posts: 105
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
Reviews Badge
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Aug 2016, 14:17
my two pre-assumptions that
1) no shortage of fishes in 1996 than fishes in 1992,
2) the legal boats in 1996 are not less efficient than legal boats in 1992

if there is a drastic shortage of the fishes in 1996, conclusion falls apart
so considering this, choice A almost says the same thing
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 07 Sep 2014
Posts: 373
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Aug 2016, 03:39
In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from the territorial waters of the country of Belukia. Soon after, the annual tonnage of lobster legally harvested in Belukian waters began declining; in 1996, despite there being no reduction in the level of legal lobster fishing activity, the local catch was 9,000 tons below pre-1992 levels. It is therefore highly likely that the outlaw fishing boats harvested about 9,000 tons of lobster illegally that year.

1992 1996

Illegal 0 9000
Legal 18000 9000

So the argument is that 9000 from legal has gone to illegal lobster harvesting.
what could be other reason

1. Population of lobster has reduced in the area where harvesting happens.


Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. The illegal lobster harvesting was not so extensive that the population of catchable lobsters in Belukia’s territorial waters had sharply declined by 1996

The illegal lobster harvesting was so extensive that the population of catchable lobsters in Belukia’s territorial waters had sharply declined by 1996 =>> aligned with prethinking

B. The average annual lobster catch, in tons, of an outlaw fishing boat has increased steadily since 1992.


The average annual lobster catch, in tons, of an outlaw fishing boat has not increased steadily since 1992. So that doesn't mean it can't account for 9000.

E. A significant proportion of Belukia’s operators of licensed lobster-fishing boats were out of business between 1992 and 1996 : We are already told that no reduction in the level of legal lobster fishing activity, so we have to take it on face value. May be some other business has started.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 26 Feb 2015
Posts: 80
GPA: 3.92
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Dec 2016, 10:42
Quick and easy A. If this assumption were untrue, the conclusion would not hold.
Director
Director
User avatar
S
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 629
Location: India
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Jun 2017, 01:07
bsv180985 wrote:
In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from the territorial waters of the country of Belukia. Soon after, the annual tonnage of lobster legally harvested in Belukian waters began declining; in 1996, despite there being no reduction in the level of legal lobster fishing activity, the local catch was 9,000 tons below pre-1992 levels. It is therefore highly likely that the outlaw fishing boats harvested about 9,000 tons of lobster illegally that year.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. The illegal lobster harvesting was not so extensive that the population of catchable lobsters in Belukia’s territorial waters had sharply declined by 1996.
B. The average annual lobster catch, in tons, of an outlaw fishing boat has increased steadily since 1992.
C. Outlaw fishing boats do not, as a group, harvest more lobsters than do licensed lobster-fishing boats.
D. The annual legal lobster harvest in Belukia in 1996 was not significantly less than 9,000 tons.
E. A significant proportion of Belukia’s operators of licensed lobster-fishing boats went out of business between 1992 and 1996.

Fact:in 1996, despite there being no reduction in the level of legal lobster fishing activity, the local catch was 9,000 tons below pre-1992 levels.

Missing Information: 9000 tons less of legal harvesting was not due to reason other than illegal harvesting in 1996.

Conclusion:It is therefore highly likely that the outlaw fishing boats harvested about 9,000 tons of lobster illegally that year.

Choice A best matches the missing information.
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
Sravna Holistic Solutions
http://www.sravnatestprep.com

Holistic and Systematic Approach

Verbal Forum Moderator
avatar
B
Joined: 13 Feb 2015
Posts: 415
Premium Member
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jun 2017, 07:41
Merged topics. Please, search before posting questions!
_________________

Please Read: Verbal Posting Rules

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 04 Feb 2017
Posts: 48
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V34
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Jul 2017, 19:44
hi guys,

can anyone please explain how can we say that harvesting was "extensive"? here is just number 9000 is given. Whether its too much to low... how anyone can assume?

Regards,
Pratik
BSchool Forum Moderator
User avatar
V
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 1227
Location: India
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
GPA: 4
CAT Tests
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jul 2017, 03:38
Hello,
I am still not able to understand how can "A" be an assumption. All the explanations given till now are as if the people knew the OA and are just trying to prove that A is correct. No one has been able to give a logical reasoning.
Please help with this one by providing a step by step break up of the argument and then how "A" is the OA.
Awaiting a quick response.
Regards
_________________

Kudos if my post helps!

Long And A Fruitful Journey - V21 to V41; If I can, So Can You!!
Preparing for RC my way
RC Summary Activity - New Project to imporve RC Skills
Bloomberg's US Bschool Ranking

My study resources:
1. Useful Formulae, Concepts and Tricks-Quant | 2. e-GMAT's ALL SC Compilation | 3. LSAT RC compilation | 4. Actual LSAT CR collection by Broal | 5. QOTD RC (Carcass) | 6. Challange OG RC | 7. GMAT Prep Challenge RC

Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 27 Dec 2016
Posts: 239
Concentration: Marketing, Social Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.65
WE: Marketing (Education)
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Oct 2017, 02:45
1
bsv180985 wrote:
In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from the territorial waters of the country of Belukia. Soon after, the annual tonnage of lobster legally harvested in Belukian waters began declining; in 1996, despite there being no reduction in the level of legal lobster fishing activity, the local catch was 9,000 tons below pre-1992 levels. It is therefore highly likely that the outlaw fishing boats harvested about 9,000 tons of lobster illegally that year.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) The illegal lobster harvesting was not so extensive that the population of catchable lobsters in Belukia’s territorial waters had sharply declined by 1996.
(B) The average annual lobster catch, in tons, of an outlaw fishing boat has increased steadily since 1992.
(C) Outlaw fishing boats do not, as a group, harvest more lobsters than do licensed lobster-fishing boats.
(D) The annual legal lobster harvest in Belukia in 1996 was not significantly less than 9,000 tons.
(E) A significant proportion of Belukia’s operators of licensed lobster-fishing boats went out of business between 1992 and 1996.


This is tough question, and OE has given me some light.

Premise :
1. 1992 start ILLEGAL, so LEGAL catch began declining.
2. In 1996, no reduction of legal activity, but the number decline 9.000 tons.

Conclusion : ILLEGAL must catch 9.000 tons.

Key from OE is: how can one infer specific number (9.000 ton)?
After reading this key from OE, I got some enlightenment.

(A) The illegal lobster harvesting was not so extensive that the population of catchable lobsters in Belukia’s territorial waters had sharply declined by 1996.
Try to negate : If population SHARPLY declined, specific conclusion about 9.000 ton cannot be inferred. BANG!

(B) The average annual lobster catch, in tons, of an outlaw fishing boat has increased steadily since 1992.
If increased steadily, how can one infer 9.000 ton?
Btw, this was my first answer :lol: :lol:

Hope it helps.
_________________

There's an app for that - Steve Jobs.

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 11 Jun 2017
Posts: 73
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Nov 2017, 12:49
bsv180985 wrote:
In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from the territorial waters of the country of Belukia. Soon after, the annual tonnage of lobster legally harvested in Belukian waters began declining; in 1996, despite there being no reduction in the level of legal lobster fishing activity, the local catch was 9,000 tons below pre-1992 levels. It is therefore highly likely that the outlaw fishing boats harvested about 9,000 tons of lobster illegally that year.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) The illegal lobster harvesting was not so extensive that the population of catchable lobsters in Belukia’s territorial waters had sharply declined by 1996.
(B) The average annual lobster catch, in tons, of an outlaw fishing boat has increased steadily since 1992.
(C) Outlaw fishing boats do not, as a group, harvest more lobsters than do licensed lobster-fishing boats.
(D) The annual legal lobster harvest in Belukia in 1996 was not significantly less than 9,000 tons.
(E) A significant proportion of Belukia’s operators of licensed lobster-fishing boats went out of business between 1992 and 1996.


1994- Total = 27,000. Legal catch = 27,000. Illegal Catch- nil.
1996 -Legal catch (reduces by 9000 = 27,000-9,000 = 18,000; Illegal catch as per conclusion = 9,000. How can this happen ? Only when, the total remains same (18,000+9,000= 27,000)


A says: The illegal lobster harvesting was not so extensive that the population of catchable lobsters in Belukia’s territorial waters had sharply declined by 1996. .
The illegal lobster harvesting did not make the total population of catchable lobsters to decline. Had these declined, the figure of 9,000 illegal catch would not be possible.

mikemcgarry : Hi Mike,

Thanks for all your prompt responses uptil now! :-)

Could you help me understand if my reasoning specified above is correct.
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 17 Sep 2017
Posts: 56
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Dec 2017, 05:06
Quote:
in 1996, despite there being no reduction in the level of legal lobster fishing activity, the local catch was 9,000 tons below pre-1992 levels.


Can any one please help me clarify this? Is it supposed to be " despite there being no increase in the level of legal lobster fishing activity, the local catch was 9000 tons below pre-1992 levels" ?
i don't understand the quoted part above
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
Posts: 430
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Dec 2017, 03:19
bsv180985 wrote:
In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from the territorial waters of the country of Belukia. Soon after, the annual tonnage of lobster legally harvested in Belukian waters began declining; in 1996, despite there being no reduction in the level of legal lobster fishing activity, the local catch was 9,000 tons below pre-1992 levels. It is therefore highly likely that the outlaw fishing boats harvested about 9,000 tons of lobster illegally that year.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) The illegal lobster harvesting was not so extensive that the population of catchable lobsters in Belukia’s territorial waters had sharply declined by 1996.
(B) The average annual lobster catch, in tons, of an outlaw fishing boat has increased steadily since 1992.
(C) Outlaw fishing boats do not, as a group, harvest more lobsters than do licensed lobster-fishing boats.
(D) The annual legal lobster harvest in Belukia in 1996 was not significantly less than 9,000 tons.
(E) A significant proportion of Belukia’s operators of licensed lobster-fishing boats went out of business between 1992 and 1996.


the key to success on cr is ability to criticize the argument before going to answer choices.
the argument propose that because we loose 9000 ton, the illegal fishing catch this 9000 ton.
one of attack is that, the illegal fishing catch only 1000 ton and make many fish run away and these fish become not catchable.

go to answer choices after you prethink an attack. choice A matches
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
P
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2093
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Dec 2017, 18:08
1
lichting wrote:
Quote:
in 1996, despite there being no reduction in the level of legal lobster fishing activity, the local catch was 9,000 tons below pre-1992 levels.


Can any one please help me clarify this? Is it supposed to be " despite there being no increase in the level of legal lobster fishing activity, the local catch was 9000 tons below pre-1992 levels" ?
i don't understand the quoted part above

The sentence is correct as is. Levels of LEGAL lobster fishing activity did not decrease. Even though legal fishing activity did not decrease, the actual amount of lobster caught legally (i.e. the output of that legal fishing activity) did decrease. So there was no decrease in the amount of lobster fishing activity (for example, the total number of hours spent fishing), but there WAS a decrease in the amount of lobster caught (the local catch in 1996 was 9,000 tons less than pre-1992 levels).

I hope that helps!
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | Instagram | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars
Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply?
Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 28 May 2015
Posts: 39
Location: India
GMAT 1: 710 Q51 V34
GPA: 4
Reviews Badge
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Jan 2018, 04:46
Marcab wrote:
What's wrong with e?
It gives a feasible reason to be considerd.


Passage states that FISHING ACTIVITY remained same. So we can assume that although number of licensed boats decreased, the efficiency improved or they were able to catch lobsters will fewer boats.

R.
Intern
Intern
User avatar
B
Joined: 05 Oct 2017
Posts: 23
Location: Bangladesh
Concentration: Accounting, Social Entrepreneurship
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Oct 2018, 18:34
bsv180985 wrote:
In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from the territorial waters of the country of Belukia. Soon after, the annual tonnage of lobster legally harvested in Belukian waters began declining; in 1996, despite there being no reduction in the level of legal lobster fishing activity, the local catch was 9,000 tons below pre-1992 levels. It is therefore highly likely that the outlaw fishing boats harvested about 9,000 tons of lobster illegally that year.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) The illegal lobster harvesting was not so extensive that the population of catchable lobsters in Belukia’s territorial waters had sharply declined by 1996.

(B) The average annual lobster catch, in tons, of an outlaw fishing boat has increased steadily since 1992.

(C) Outlaw fishing boats do not, as a group, harvest more lobsters than do licensed lobster-fishing boats.

(D) The annual legal lobster harvest in Belukia in 1996 was not significantly less than 9,000 tons.

(E) A significant proportion of Belukia’s operators of licensed lobster-fishing boats went out of business between 1992 and 1996.


if I negate (A), how does it destroy argument? Please healp VeritasKarishma Abhishek009

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

....and now go, make glorious MISTAKES and make PROFIT from those mistakes. You are already NAKED. There is NO reason not to FOLLOW your heart.

GMAT Club Bot
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from &nbs [#permalink] 31 Oct 2018, 18:34

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3    Next  [ 41 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from

  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®.