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 shark. 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 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.

Ten years later, however, environmentalists are developing a substantial network to defend the sharks. In the past few years, these groups have called for, and won, several key pieces of national legislation designed to protect sharks. As evidence of the decline in shark populations, these groups point both to statistical analyses and to numerous anecdotal reports of dwindling populations in popular shark fishing zones. They also point out that sharks, unlike most fish, bear very few young: for most species, no more than two per year (as opposed to egg-laying fish, some of which can lay millions of eggs annually). According to these groups, this slow rate of reproduction makes rapid extinction by overfishing a real possibility. Finally, these groups cite the fact that since the NMFS started its program, a number of regional shark fisheries first grew, then crashed, since fisheries’ waters could not support increased shark fishing.

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.

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

A. Is the shark population actually declining?
B. How many eggs, on average, do egg-laying fish produce?
C. What are the most populous fish off the United States’ East Coast waters?
D. How many US shark fisheries have gone out of business since the early 1980s?
E. In what ways did the NMFS specifically attempt to induce fishermen to equip their operations to fish for sharks?


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
B. is premised on statistical information that is unreliable
C. does not take into account those sharks that are caught accidentally by US fishermen
D. has been rendered insignificant by recent advances in data collection techniques
E. is irrelevant since it takes into account snark population in only one small region


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
C. for many of them, the proliferation of sharks constituted a serious impediment to their businesses
D. most believed that the shark industry was reaping massive profits, and they welcomed the opportunity to join the market
E. many had already been contacted by representatives of overseas markets anxious to buy shark fins


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.
B. The extinction of sharks, if it were to occur, would inevitably be followed by the proliferation of more dangerous sea creatures.
C. Among sea creatures, sharks are singular in their need for protective legislation because of their slow rate of reproduction.
D. Shark populations may be decreasing, and some action to prevent the depletion of shark populations would probably be well advised.
E. Those who argue against government protection for sharks have a stronger case than do those who argue for such protection.