It is currently 19 Oct 2017, 11:42

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

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

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

11 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 28 Jul 2009
Posts: 151

Kudos [?]: 246 [11], given: 4

In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Dec 2009, 11:37
11
This post received
KUDOS
36
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  85% (hard)

Question Stats:

54% (02:02) correct 46% (02:12) wrong based on 1601 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.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Kudos [?]: 246 [11], given: 4

20 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 26 Sep 2009
Posts: 23

Kudos [?]: 35 [20], given: 3

Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Dec 2009, 12:30
20
This post received
KUDOS
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-)

Kudos [?]: 35 [20], given: 3

1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 25 Mar 2010
Posts: 3

Kudos [?]: 2 [1], given: 0

Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Mar 2010, 05:01
1
This post received
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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 beging no reduction in the level of legal lobster fishing activity, the local catch was 9,000tons below pre-1992 levels. It is therefore highly likely that the outlaw fishing boats harvested about 9,000tons 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 poplulation of catchable lobsters in Belukia's territorial waters had sharply delined by 1996.
B. The average annual lobster catch, in tons, of an outlaw fishing boat has increased lobster-fishing boats.
C.Outlaw fishing boats do not , as a group, harvest more lobsters than do licensed 9,000 tons.
D. The annual lobster harvest in Belukia in 1996 was not significantly less than 9,000tons.
E. A significant proportion of Belukia's operators of licensded lobster-fishing boats went out of business between 1992 and 1996.

Kudos [?]: 2 [1], given: 0

BSchool Forum Moderator
avatar
Joined: 02 Oct 2009
Posts: 589

Kudos [?]: 449 [0], given: 412

GMAT 1: 530 Q47 V17
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V36
WE: Business Development (Telecommunications)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Mar 2010, 08:06
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.

Kudos [?]: 449 [0], given: 412

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Jan 2010
Posts: 236

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 16

Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Apr 2010, 09:04
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 !!!)

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 16

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 03 Feb 2010
Posts: 66

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 4

Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Apr 2010, 09:26
ans A.

A is the necessary assumption,nowhere in argument they focussed on lobster overall population.
and linked decline in lobster catch ---> decline in illegal catch of lobster.
so they definately assumed that the overall population of lobster has been constant .

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 4

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 29 Oct 2009
Posts: 196

Kudos [?]: 109 [0], given: 12

Concentration: General Management, Sustainability
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Apr 2010, 10:42
I go with D. What is the OA please?

Kudos [?]: 109 [0], given: 12

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 87

Kudos [?]: 72 [0], given: 5

Location: United States
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Apr 2010, 09:32
Agree with A. The lobster population would need to remain the same in 1996 as 1992 in order to make the argument work.

I don't understand why D would be an option. The total harvest shouldn't matter. I think D says the harvest did not reduce by more than half, right?

Last edited by mmphf on 29 Apr 2010, 14:33, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos [?]: 72 [0], given: 5

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 87

Kudos [?]: 72 [0], given: 5

Location: United States
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Apr 2010, 14:46
ykaiim wrote:
Can anyone explain A in more detail?


The way I read the statement, is that in 92, the illegal lobster pirates, started eating into the legal lobster harvest, and thus decreasing the legal lobsters. The point of the argument, is that how ever many illegal lobsters are pulled out of the water, the legal lobsters harvest decline by exactly that amount. Thus if legal lobsters declined by 9000 tons in 96, then there must have been 9000 tons of illegal lobsters that year.

But there could be other reasons for the legal lobster decline. Such as the illegal lobster pirates fished out of the water so much between 92 and 96, that there are simply not as many lobsters any more. But A says that definitely did not happen. The argument depends on this definitely not happening.

Still waiting on OA please!

Kudos [?]: 72 [0], given: 5

Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 927

Kudos [?]: 1504 [0], given: 40

WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Apr 2010, 20:57
Does this mean that the lobster couldnt breed and grow in population in 96?

Argument says: LEGAL lobster catching was as usual but still 9000 tons less harvest.
Conclusion: Outlaw fishing boats harvested about 9,000 tons of lobster illegally that year.

This is still confusing.

mmphf wrote:
ykaiim wrote:
Can anyone explain A in more detail?


The way I read the statement, is that in 92, the illegal lobster pirates, started eating into the legal lobster harvest, and thus decreasing the legal lobsters. The point of the argument, is that how ever many illegal lobsters are pulled out of the water, the legal lobsters harvest decline by exactly that amount. Thus if legal lobsters declined by 9000 tons in 96, then there must have been 9000 tons of illegal lobsters that year.

But there could be other reasons for the legal lobster decline. Such as the illegal lobster pirates fished out of the water so much between 92 and 96, that there are simply not as many lobsters any more. But A says that definitely did not happen. The argument depends on this definitely not happening.

Still waiting on OA please!

_________________

Want to improve your CR: http://gmatclub.com/forum/cr-methods-an-approach-to-find-the-best-answers-93146.html
Tricky Quant problems: http://gmatclub.com/forum/50-tricky-questions-92834.html
Important Grammer Fundamentals: http://gmatclub.com/forum/key-fundamentals-of-grammer-our-crucial-learnings-on-sc-93659.html

Kudos [?]: 1504 [0], given: 40

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 87

Kudos [?]: 72 [0], given: 5

Location: United States
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Apr 2010, 13:33
ykaiim wrote:
Does this mean that the lobster couldnt breed and grow in population in 96?

Argument says: LEGAL lobster catching was as usual but still 9000 tons less harvest.
Conclusion: Outlaw fishing boats harvested about 9,000 tons of lobster illegally that year.

This is still confusing.



Um yeah, it's still confusing cause I still do not see the OA! Please post danji628.

"A" says that the population, whether they breeded or not, did not sharply decline. If you do not agree with "A" what do you think the answer is? The other ones do not work for me at all, and you only need to pick the best answer, not the most perfect answer.

Kudos [?]: 72 [0], given: 5

3 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
B
Affiliations: SPG
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 320

Kudos [?]: 869 [3], given: 28

Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Jun 2010, 17:12
3
This post received
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED

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

_________________

press kudos, if you like the explanation, appreciate the effort or encourage people to respond.

Download the Ultimate SC Flashcards

Kudos [?]: 869 [3], given: 28

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Posts: 450

Kudos [?]: 109 [0], given: 10

Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jun 2010, 12:15
+1 A
well explained by "vaibhav87"

Good job
_________________

GGG (Gym / GMAT / Girl) -- Be Serious

Its your duty to post OA afterwards; some one must be waiting for that...

Kudos [?]: 109 [0], given: 10

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 15 Sep 2009
Posts: 263

Kudos [?]: 76 [0], given: 6

Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Jul 2012, 09:09
Another +1 for A.

Negating A, we realize that the levels have already been reduced so much that the reduction in tonnage is not due to the harvesting by the illegal guys.

In short there simply was not enough lobster post-1996.

Cheers,
Der alte Fritz.
_________________

+1 Kudos me - I'm half Irish, half Prussian.

Kudos [?]: 76 [0], given: 6

VP
VP
User avatar
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1377

Kudos [?]: 1675 [0], given: 62

Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Aug 2012, 14:41
What's wrong with e?
It gives a feasible reason to be considerd.
_________________

Prepositional Phrases Clarified|Elimination of BEING| Absolute Phrases Clarified
Rules For Posting
www.Univ-Scholarships.com

Kudos [?]: 1675 [0], given: 62

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
B
Status: Now or never
Joined: 07 Aug 2010
Posts: 343

Kudos [?]: 293 [0], given: 27

Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
GPA: 3.5
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
Premium Member
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Aug 2012, 23:25
Clear A , reduction is catch is attributed to illegal harvesting , but what if the population is itself declining , then the attribution to illegal harvesting doesnt hold , not a 700 level question
_________________

Please press KUDOS if you like my post

Kudos [?]: 293 [0], given: 27

1 KUDOS received
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Status: 2000 posts! I don't know whether I should feel great or sad about it! LOL
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1635

Kudos [?]: 1105 [1], given: 109

Location: Peru
Schools: Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, MIT & HKS (Government)
WE 1: Economic research
WE 2: Banking
WE 3: Government: Foreign Trade and SMEs
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Sep 2012, 20:24
1
This post received
KUDOS
+1 A

The author is assuming that the lobster population has not declined since 1992.
_________________

"Life’s battle doesn’t always go to stronger or faster men; but sooner or later the man who wins is the one who thinks he can."

My Integrated Reasoning Logbook / Diary: http://gmatclub.com/forum/my-ir-logbook-diary-133264.html

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Kudos [?]: 1105 [1], given: 109

2 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Status: Dedicates 2013 to MBA !!
Joined: 06 Jul 2012
Posts: 59

Kudos [?]: 184 [2], given: 14

Location: United States (MI)
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, General Management
GPA: 3.8
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Jan 2013, 14:23
2
This post received
KUDOS
13
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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 is 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 were out of business between 1992 and 1996
_________________

Thanks and Regards,
Charu Kapoor

Never Never Never GIVE UP !!
Consider KUDOS in case I was able to help you.

Kudos [?]: 184 [2], given: 14

2 KUDOS received
VP
VP
User avatar
S
Status: Top MBA Admissions Consultant
Joined: 24 Jul 2011
Posts: 1347

Kudos [?]: 642 [2], given: 20

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V48
GRE 1: 1540 Q800 V740
Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Feb 2013, 11:17
2
This post received
KUDOS
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 | Top MBA Rankings and MBA Admissions Blog

Top MBA Admissions Consulting | Top MiM Admissions Consulting

Premium MBA Essay Review|Best MBA Interview Preparation|Exclusive GMAT coaching

Get a FREE Detailed MBA Profile Evaluation | Call us now +91 98998 31738

Kudos [?]: 642 [2], given: 20

8 KUDOS received
VP
VP
avatar
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 1077

Kudos [?]: 648 [8], given: 70

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
8
This post received
KUDOS
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

Kudos [?]: 648 [8], given: 70

Re: In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from   [#permalink] 20 Feb 2013, 01:58

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 37 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  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| 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®.