Summer is Coming! Join the Game of Timers Competition to Win Epic Prizes. Registration is Open. Game starts Mon July 1st.

It is currently 20 Jul 2019, 05:19

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

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

Find Similar Topics 
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 28 Jul 2009
Posts: 100
In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 06 Jan 2019, 13:29
19
84
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  85% (hard)

Question Stats:

55% (02:20) correct 45% (02:39) wrong based on 2931 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics


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.

Originally posted by bsv180985 on 08 Dec 2009, 11:37.
Last edited by Bunuel on 06 Jan 2019, 13:29, edited 1 time in total.
Edited the question.
Most Helpful Community Reply
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 26 Sep 2009
Posts: 13
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Dec 2009, 12:30
28
A. The illegal lobster harvesting was not so extensive that the opulation of
catchable lobsters in Belukia’s territorial waters had sharply eclined by 1996. Yes this is it..As we know that legal catch has not increased and option tell that the population of lobsters has not declined so therefore it is only possible then that illegal catch was 9000..

B. The average annual lobster catch, in tons, of an outlaw fishing boat has increased steadily since 1992. Nothing mentioned related Avrg catch by outlaw fishing boats out of scope

C. Outlaw fishing boats do not, as a group, harvest more lobsters than do licensed lobster-fishing boats. Out of scope

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

E. A significant proportion of Belukia’s operators of licensed lobster-fishing boats went out of business between 1992 and 1996. Out of scope as it is already mentioned that there is no decline in legal catch


if u like my post..consider it for kudos 8-)
General Discussion
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 02 Oct 2009
Posts: 424
GMAT 1: 530 Q47 V17
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V36
WE: Business Development (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Mar 2010, 08:06
1
It should be A

A states that the Quantity of Fishes is more or less the same in 92 & 96.
This assumption is really required.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Jan 2010
Posts: 163
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Apr 2010, 09:04
1
A is the best; it emphasizes that the A(the legal catch)+B(illegal catch)= A(legal catch in 1992)+B(legal catch in 1992) only if B did not decrease because of overfishing by 1997.

I had D as a contender as well, but eliminated it after reading A. Moreover, the illegal catch does not contribute to the country's annual output (hopefully !!!)
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
B
Affiliations: SPG
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 297
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Jun 2010, 17:12
7
1

Premise: illegal lobster harvesting began in 1992.
Premise: legal catch was 9k tons below pre-1992 levels.
Conclusion: it is highly likely that illegal harvest was about 9k tons.

A defends the conclusion by eliminating the possibility that lobster population may have decreased because of rampant harvesting

since assumption strengthens the conclusion .. its logical negative should weaken the conclusion

logical negative of A: illegal harvest was so extensive that lobster population sharply declined.

the logical negative clearly weakens the conclusion .. and passes the test

A is correct
SVP
SVP
User avatar
G
Status: Top MBA Admissions Consultant
Joined: 24 Jul 2011
Posts: 1814
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V48
GRE 1: Q800 V740
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Feb 2013, 11:17
2
The argument says that the lobster catch in 1996 was 9,000 tonnes below pre-1992 levels. It also says that the 9,000 tonnes were accounted for by illegal lobster harvesting.

Therefore any assumption that the argument depends on must propose a rejected alternative explanation for the 9,000 tonnes.

A) This seems like the alternative explanation that was rejected. If the lobster catch had not declined due to illegal harvesting done earlier, then it could have declined due to illegal harvesting done now.


A) it is.
_________________
GyanOne [www.gyanone.com]| Premium MBA and MiM Admissions Consulting

Awesome Work | Honest Advise | Outstanding Results

Reach Out, Lets chat!
Email: info at gyanone dot com | +91 98998 31738 | Skype: gyanone.services
Director
Director
avatar
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 858
Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Feb 2013, 01:58
9
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
Director
Director
User avatar
B
Joined: 03 Feb 2013
Posts: 836
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, 10:40
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)
_________________
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 17 Sep 2013
Posts: 19
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Feb 2015, 08:32
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: 103
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, 08:20
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: 27
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Dec 2015, 03:54
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..
Director
Director
User avatar
S
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 630
Location: India
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Jun 2017, 02:07
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 Test Prep
http://www.sravnatestprep.com

Holistic and Systematic Approach
Retired Moderator
User avatar
V
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 1212
Location: India
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
GPA: 4
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jul 2017, 04:38
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
_________________
Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 27 Dec 2016
Posts: 232
Concentration: Marketing, Social Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.65
WE: Marketing (Education)
Reviews Badge
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Oct 2017, 03:45
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: 17 Sep 2017
Posts: 54
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Dec 2017, 06:06
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
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
D
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2676
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, 19:08
2
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/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | Instagram | Blog | Bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal: RC | CR | SC

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; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

SC 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?

RC, CR, 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
User avatar
S
Joined: 05 Oct 2017
Posts: 46
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, 19:34
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
_________________
.... You are already NAKED. There is NO reason not to FOLLOW your heart.
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
D
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 9443
Location: Pune, India
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Nov 2018, 11:32
1
1
rashedBhai wrote:
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



Say,
Before 1992, 20,000 lobsters were harvested (completely legally) every year.
In 1992, illegal harvesting started. So, 20,000 went down to 18,000.
In 1996, fishing activity was the same (so same number of fishing boats for same hrs were used etc), legal catch was 9000 below 1992 levels i.e. legal catch was 11,000.

Conclusion: Hence, illegal activity harvested 9000 tons that year. (to make up the initial 20,000 number)


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.

This says that the number of catchable lobsters stayed the same by 1996. So the available population of lobsters which can be caught (perhaps living above certain water level) has stayed the same. We need this to be true for our conclusion to hold.
Note what happens when we negate it - the illegal harvesting WAS so extensive that the population of catchable lobsters sharply declined by 1996.
If the harvesting is so extensive that the lobsters are unable to breed at the required pace to maintain the population, the number of lobsters that would be caught would be less than 20,000. Hence, illegal activity would not have harvested 9000 tons that year.

(B) The average annual lobster catch, in tons, of an outlaw fishing boat has increased steadily since 1992.
We need to make no assumption about one outlaw fishing boat. Perhaps many new outlaw fishing boats join every year.

(C) Outlaw fishing boats do not, as a group, harvest more lobsters than do licensed lobster-fishing boats.
Again, no such information is given. We don't know the comparative numbers and our conclusion does not depend on them.

(D) The annual legal lobster harvest in Belukia in 1996 was not significantly less than 9,000 tons.
Again, we don't know the comparative numbers and our conclusion does not depend on them.

(E) A significant proportion of Belukia’s operators of licensed lobster-fishing boats went out of business between 1992 and 1996.
Not given. Perhaps the annual harvest of each boat reduced by some percentage but nobody went out of business.

Answer (A)
_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >
GMAT Club Bot
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from   [#permalink] 01 Nov 2018, 11:32
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  





Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne