Your judgment is absolutely fine, option C is lucrative because of the reason you have stated above but if you pay a close attention on the line:

many of these fishermen were already catching sharks by accident. Others were complaining that sharks frequently tore into their nets.

Many and others the two bold words are important here and state that the fishermen were a few who were facing the problem caused by the sharks.

Now read option C

C. for many of them, the proliferation of sharks constituted a serious impediment to their businesses

Answer option C used many which is too strong to pick up. The reason this option is here is to trap the test taker into a quantity puzzle (Passage state a very tiny part of something but answer states the majority part of the same thing)

The second reason is that the word "proliferation" makes this option out of the scope as there is not such indication is there in the passage.

Now read the lines which clearly supports A

many of these fishermen were already catching sharks by accident.

It means sharks were already present in that area

Thank you

can someone provide explanations to the answers?

Can anyone please explain Q. # 3.
Is the answer A because in fishermen accidentally catch Sharks sometimes and hence we can infer that sharks live in the same waters as other fishes.

I marked C because of the line "Others were complaining that sharks frequently tore into their nets, often destroying as much as half the fishermen's catch before they could reach shore". Is it the word "proliferation" that makes it wrong?

Can anyone explain questions 1 and 2?

My attempt.

1. The passage provides the answer to which of the following questions?

A. Is the shark population actually declining? Para 3 says that there is not enough information to conclude
B. How many eggs, on average, do egg-laying fish produce? Para 2 say the following, "some of which can lay millions of eggs annually" This is not an average
C. What are the most populous fish off the United States’ East Coast waters? we are told in para 1 that some type of fish are being overfished but we are not told which fish is the most popular.
D. How many US shark fisheries have gone out of business since the early 1980s? we were not told any information regarding shrk fisheries that went out if business
E. In what ways did the NMFS specifically attempt to induce fishermen to equip their operations to fish for sharks?

Ans: The answer can be found in the 1st paragraph. See the highlighted section.

"In the early 1980s, East Coast fishermen dangerously overfished their region's grouper, snapper, and king mackerel populations. The United States National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), in response to the impending crisis, developed a program designed to encourage some fishermen to switch to fishing for sharks. The program boasted several obvious benefits. For one, many of these fishermen were already catching sharks by accident. Others were complaining that sharks frequently tore into their nets, often destroying as much as half the fishermen's catch before they could reach the shore. Finally, there was the fact that sharks have little public-relations appeal; in other words, the chance of opposition from “Save the Sharks" groups was relatively slight. The NMFS program distributed instructional videotapes on how to convert fishing operations provided fishermen with contacts in overseas markets where shark fins are in great demand, and, in some cases, partially subsidized the cost of conversion."


2. It can be inferred from the passage that the author believes that the evidence used by environmentalists regarding shark populations

A. suggests that shark populations are already too far depleted to be salvaged The author believe that there is not enough information to conclude
B. is premised on statistical information that is unreliable
C. does not take into account those sharks that are caught accidentally by US fishermen this happens before the new program when into effect and besides one could conclude that the fishermen release the sharks back into the water
D. has been rendered insignificant by recent advances in data collection techniques No information in the passage to suggest this
E. is irrelevant since it takes into account snark population in only one small region Cannot be inferred

Ans: The answer can be found in para 3
"Industry spokespeople rightly point out that our knowledge of sharks Is relatively primitive and that estimates of the shark population, on which environmentalists base their arguments, are highly speculative. However, it is probably wise, at this time, to err on the side of caution, if for no other reason than that no one has any evidence or knowledge regarding what an ocean without sharks would be like."



3. According to the passage, East Coast fishermen were responsive to the NMFS program that encouraged them to fish for sharks because

A. sharks often live in the same waters as do grouper, snapper, and king mackerel, which are also valuable to fishermen
B. the area's sea bass and sturgeon populations were rapidly being depleted. sea bass and sturgeon were not mention
C. for many of them, the proliferation of sharks constituted a serious impediment to their businesses. This is a disadvantage. we are looking for some advantages of the MMFS program
D. most believed that the shark industry was reaping massive profits, and they welcomed the opportunity to join the market The government gave the fishermen contact to overseas markets because of demand. This doesn't equate to profitable businesses.
E. many had already been contacted by representatives of overseas markets anxious to buy shark fins Once again, they were given information to contact overseas. They did not have these contacts before the program.

Ans: The answer can be found in para 1:
"In the early 1980s, East Coast fishermen dangerously overfished their region's grouper, snapper, and king mackerel populations. The United States National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), in response to the impending crisis, developed a program designed to encourage some fishermen to switch to fishing for sharks. The program boasted several obvious benefits. For one, many of these fishermen were already catching sharks by accident. Others were complaining that sharks frequently tore into their nets, often destroying as much as half the fishermen's catch before they could reach the shore. Finally, there was the fact that sharks have little public-relations appeal; in other words, the chance of opposition from “Save the Sharks" groups was relatively slight. The NMFS program distributed instructional videotapes on how to convert fishing operations provided fishermen with contacts in overseas markets where shark fins are in great demand, and, in some cases, partially subsidized the cost of conversion."

4. With which of the following statements would the author most likely agree?

A. A misguided government policy has created a crisis in the U.S. fishing industry that cannot be remedied. The highlighted section is going too far. The author agrees that there is not enough information to conclude
B. The extinction of sharks, if it were to occur, would inevitably be followed by the proliferation of more dangerous sea creatures. the author says because we really don't know what will happen If the shark population should go extinct, therefore we should err on the side of caution.
C. Among sea creatures, sharks are singular in their need for protective legislation because of their slow rate of reproduction. the sharks need protective legislation, not because of the slow rate of reproduction but because the environmentalists believe the shark population is being overfished.
D. Shark populations may be decreasing, and some action to prevent the depletion of shark populations would probably be well advised. err on the side of caution
E. Those who argue against government protection for sharks have a stronger case than do those who argue for such protection. the author did not agree

Ans: The answer can be found in para 3:
Industry spokespeople rightly point out that our knowledge of sharks Is relatively primitive and that estimates of the shark population, on which environmentalists base their arguments, are highly speculative. However, it is probably wise, at this time, to err on the side of caution, if for no other reason than that no one has any evidence or knowledge regarding what an ocean without sharks would be like.