Events & Promotions
| Last visit was: 06 Sep 2026, 01:56 |
It is currently 06 Sep 2026, 01:56 |
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Sep 0609:30 AM EDT
-12:30 PM EST
Top scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful EA course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Perfect class schedule and easy course access for working professionals. Class starts Sundays Sept. 6, 2026.
Sep 0712:01 AM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
On the 7th, GMAT Club Tests will be Free! Including all the Quizzes, Questions, and Tests. 12 AM - 11:59 PM PDT
Sep 0712:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Tejas studied hard but kept repeating the same mistakes. After 3 attempts at 645, a focused 4-week strategy helped him identify and fix what was holding him back—leading to a 695 with just 12–15 hours of study per week.
Sep 0201:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Take 30% off all study plans with code COURSEWORK - Expires on Monday 9/7
Sep 0401:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
This Labor Day, turn your hard work into real score gains. From 615→715 in 15 days to 705 in 30 days, our students prove what's possible with personalized, expert guidance. Save up to 25% on 1-on-1 tutoring.
Sep 0410:00 AM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
We’ve worked incredibly hard to build TTP into the best test prep experience possible, and it would mean a lot to us to win Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep. If TTP has helped you, we’d be incredibly grateful for your vote.- Sep 07
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
A complete walkthrough of GMAT Club’s free 12-week GMAT study plan: what you study each week, how progress and goals are tracked, how the error log works, and how your practice unlocks paid tools at no cost. - Sep 09
07:00 AM PDT
-10:00 AM PDT
Meet AdComs and explore top Master’s programs - MiM, MiF, MSc, MSBA and more. - Application Fee Waivers - Free 1-Week of GMAT Club Tests: - Master's Application Toolkit - Grand Prize Giveaway - Sep 09
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Three MBA applications. Three rejections. No interview invites. A year later, Aman was admitted to Cambridge Judge, SMU, and IMD. In this episode of MBA Admit Stories, Aman shares how he rebuilt his MBA application... 
Sep 1008:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Sep 1507:00 PM EDT
-09:00 PM EST
Elite scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Tues/Thurs Sept. 15, 2026 - Nov. 15, 2027, 7:00pm-9:00pm EST
Sep 2108:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Mon, Tues, Wed, Thur, Fri Sept. 21, 2026 - Oct. 9, 2027, 7:00pm-10:00pm EST
24 Feb 2022, 22:06
Kudos
Bookmarks
KarishmaB
Quote:
Think about it - What can extensive illegal harvesting do? It can reduce the overall population of the lobsters. If too many are caught, they may not be able to keep their population steady season after season.
so ... that ... gives us a cause-effect relation
The illegal harvesting was not so extensive that the population had sharply declined...
This means that the illegal harvesting was not very extensive. So the overall population had not declined sharply. It was kind of steady. So number of catchable lobsters was the same. This supports that if we are catching fewer lobsters by legal activity, we must be catching the rest through illegal activity. This is what our conclusion says.
06 Nov 2023, 15:36
Kudos
Bookmarks
Understanding the argument -
In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from the territorial waters of the country of Belukia. Fact
Soon after, the annual tonnage of lobster legally harvested in Belukian waters began declining; 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. Fact
It is therefore highly likely that the outlaw fishing boats harvested about 9,000 tons of lobster illegally that year. - Conclusion
There are two things happening
1. Outlaw fishing boats begin illegal harvesting. (X)
2. In 1996, the legal catch was 9000 tons less. (Y)
The conclusion says X was the reason for Y. X causes Y.
Let me share another more straightforward argument to make it clear
1. Alcohol sales increases in the city.
2. Number of accidents increase
We say the increase in liquor sales leads to an increase in accidents.
Do you see that the author has taken two events and concluded that one caused the other?
So, what assumptions do we make when we convert two events, X and Y, into a causal argument? We assume that
1. It is not a coincidence
2. There is no other cause.
Are you with me so far? If no, then read again. If yes, then let's proceed with our argument.
1. Outlaw fishing boats begin illegal harvesting. (X)
2. In 1996, the legal catch was 9000 tons less. (Y)
What will be the assumptions for our argument to be valid?
1. Outlaw fishing boats begin illegal harvesting (X), and the reduction of legal catch (Y) was not coincidental.
2. Nothing other than the Outlaw fishing boats or illegal fishing (X) could have caused the reduction of legal catch (Y).
If you have understood so far, then option elimination is comparatively easy.
Option Elimination -
(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. - This is trying to eliminate other causes. What other cause? That the population of lobsters in 1996 had not gone down. Because if this is true, then our conclusion shatters.
(B) The average annual lobster catch, in tons, of an outlaw fishing boat has increased steadily since 1992. - If you don't read well (sorry, but that's mostly the case), this option talks about "ONE FISHING BOAT." But GMAT knows that under pressure, we read fast and can miss this. And we do; this is their trap. And if we miss reading that properly, this is a good option. But we are not concerned about one boat, and this in no way explains the causal relationship. But this was an innovative way on GMAT's part to create a fundamental deception - make things singular and slip them in. Distortion.
(C) Outlaw fishing boats do not, as a group, harvest more lobsters than do licensed lobster-fishing boats. - This comparison is not relevant to the causal relationship that the author has created. Out of scope.
(D) The annual legal lobster harvest in Belukia in 1996 was not significantly less than 9,000 tons. - This option is created by just putting some familiar words from the argument and somehow putting them in a sentence. Again, it's a good trap for readers who don't read properly. And for readers who read slightly less than the best, B is a good trap. Let me explain.
Say the catch before 1992 was 100,000 tons.
1996, the catch was 9000 tons less, translating to 91,000 tons.
This option says the legal catch was less than 9000 tons. (our 1996 catch is 91,000 tons, so this is in no way linked) but it took that 9000 tons from the argument and created a deception, knowing people tend to read fast on tests and tend to miss. Distortion.
(E) A significant proportion of Belukia’s operators of licensed lobster-fishing boats went out of business between 1992 and 1996. - How does it even matter? We are talking about 1996, and this option is talking about between 1992 and 1996. Moreover, the argument says, "despite there being no reduction in the level of legal lobster fishing activity," Out of scope.
Learning - Read carefully
In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from the territorial waters of the country of Belukia. Fact
Soon after, the annual tonnage of lobster legally harvested in Belukian waters began declining; 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. Fact
It is therefore highly likely that the outlaw fishing boats harvested about 9,000 tons of lobster illegally that year. - Conclusion
There are two things happening
1. Outlaw fishing boats begin illegal harvesting. (X)
2. In 1996, the legal catch was 9000 tons less. (Y)
The conclusion says X was the reason for Y. X causes Y.
Let me share another more straightforward argument to make it clear
1. Alcohol sales increases in the city.
2. Number of accidents increase
We say the increase in liquor sales leads to an increase in accidents.
Do you see that the author has taken two events and concluded that one caused the other?
So, what assumptions do we make when we convert two events, X and Y, into a causal argument? We assume that
1. It is not a coincidence
2. There is no other cause.
Are you with me so far? If no, then read again. If yes, then let's proceed with our argument.
1. Outlaw fishing boats begin illegal harvesting. (X)
2. In 1996, the legal catch was 9000 tons less. (Y)
What will be the assumptions for our argument to be valid?
1. Outlaw fishing boats begin illegal harvesting (X), and the reduction of legal catch (Y) was not coincidental.
2. Nothing other than the Outlaw fishing boats or illegal fishing (X) could have caused the reduction of legal catch (Y).
If you have understood so far, then option elimination is comparatively easy.
Option Elimination -
(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. - This is trying to eliminate other causes. What other cause? That the population of lobsters in 1996 had not gone down. Because if this is true, then our conclusion shatters.
(B) The average annual lobster catch, in tons, of an outlaw fishing boat has increased steadily since 1992. - If you don't read well (sorry, but that's mostly the case), this option talks about "ONE FISHING BOAT." But GMAT knows that under pressure, we read fast and can miss this. And we do; this is their trap. And if we miss reading that properly, this is a good option. But we are not concerned about one boat, and this in no way explains the causal relationship. But this was an innovative way on GMAT's part to create a fundamental deception - make things singular and slip them in. Distortion.
(C) Outlaw fishing boats do not, as a group, harvest more lobsters than do licensed lobster-fishing boats. - This comparison is not relevant to the causal relationship that the author has created. Out of scope.
(D) The annual legal lobster harvest in Belukia in 1996 was not significantly less than 9,000 tons. - This option is created by just putting some familiar words from the argument and somehow putting them in a sentence. Again, it's a good trap for readers who don't read properly. And for readers who read slightly less than the best, B is a good trap. Let me explain.
Say the catch before 1992 was 100,000 tons.
1996, the catch was 9000 tons less, translating to 91,000 tons.
This option says the legal catch was less than 9000 tons. (our 1996 catch is 91,000 tons, so this is in no way linked) but it took that 9000 tons from the argument and created a deception, knowing people tend to read fast on tests and tend to miss. Distortion.
(E) A significant proportion of Belukia’s operators of licensed lobster-fishing boats went out of business between 1992 and 1996. - How does it even matter? We are talking about 1996, and this option is talking about between 1992 and 1996. Moreover, the argument says, "despite there being no reduction in the level of legal lobster fishing activity," Out of scope.
Learning - Read carefully
10 Dec 2023, 01:14
Kudos
Bookmarks
Dear GMATNinja
I spent a lot on this question and still I think A is contradicting the conclusion!
in conclusion illegal harvesting in culprit but in A it is saying its saying the harvesting by illegal was not so extensive!
would you pls clarify it?
I do appreciate in advance for your time
I spent a lot on this question and still I think A is contradicting the conclusion!
in conclusion illegal harvesting in culprit but in A it is saying its saying the harvesting by illegal was not so extensive!
would you pls clarify it?
I do appreciate in advance for your time
GMATNinja
13 Jan 2024, 09:07
Kudos
Bookmarks
nazii
It's important to read the whole sentence! Look at (A) again:
Quote:
This isn't saying that the illegal harvesting wasn't extensive. It's saying that it wasn't extensive enough to cause a sharp decrease in the number of catchable lobsters!
That's a big difference. If I say "Tim didn't eat so much that he exploded", I'm not saying that Tim didn't eat a lot. I'm saying that there aren't chunks of Tim splattered on the sofa.
Once you take into account (A) in its entirety, you'll see that it has to be true. Imagine that it's typically the case that 10,000 lobster are caught legally. But then one year, when illegal fishing is up, only 1,000 are caught legally. If we're going to conclude that 9,000 more lobsters were caught illegally that year, we're assuming that the total is pretty much constant. In other words, the increase in illegal fishing perfectly offsets the decreased in legal fishing.
But if the illegal fishing caused the overall numbers to plummet, well, there's no longer any reason to believe that an increase in illegal fishing would fully offset the decrease in legal fishing.
So we're assuming the illegal fishing wasn’t so overwhelming that it caused the overall fishing numbers to plummet, and that's exactly what (A) is saying.
I hope that clears things up!
