It is currently 25 Sep 2017, 08:21

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Jeanette: We must stop the overfishing of the Guantabe

Author Message
Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 461

Kudos [?]: 215 [0], given: 4

Jeanette: We must stop the overfishing of the Guantabe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Feb 2010, 16:31
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

32% (01:14) correct 68% (01:23) wrong based on 32 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Jeanette: We must stop the overfishing of the Guantabe fishing beds off the coast of Ecuador. Unless the overfishing is curtailed, several local species of fish may become extinct.
Sandra: The people who live on the Ecuadoran coast depend on the fish for their survival. To deprive them of this source of food might mean death by starvation.

Which of the following, if true, is the best objection that could be made from Jeanette’s point of view to counter Sandra’s point?

1] There are species of fish in other locations that are quite similar to the fish found in the Guantabe fishing beds.

2] Allowing particular species to breed unchecked can upset the delicate balance of the ecosystem in the entire area.

3] A steady diet of fish can raise the level of PCBs (known carcinogens) in the body of a human to dangerous levels.

4] In a study, it was found that the coastal Ecuadorians would willingly eat other foods when they were available.

5] The vast majority of the fish now taken from the Guantabe fishing beds is taken by commercial fishing ships that sell their catch in other countries.
_________________

-Underline your question. It takes only a few seconds!
-Search before you post.

Kudos [?]: 215 [0], given: 4

Manager
Joined: 26 May 2005
Posts: 203

Kudos [?]: 128 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

07 Feb 2010, 21:03
Sandra's point is that the people only eat the fish found there and there is no other way the people will survive. To counter this, if we can say that the people do eat something else if necesary will weaken sandras claim.

D.

Kudos [?]: 128 [0], given: 1

Manager
Joined: 29 Oct 2009
Posts: 51

Kudos [?]: 32 [0], given: 14

Schools: Cambridge

### Show Tags

08 Feb 2010, 08:06
Well, IMO the answer is E.
E attacks the Sanda's basic premise that the fishing is done by local and if disallowed, it will deprive people their staple food.
_________________

No Execuse..

Kudos [?]: 32 [0], given: 14

Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Jul 2009
Posts: 287

Kudos [?]: 165 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

08 Feb 2010, 08:14
vscid wrote:
Jeanette: We must stop the overfishing of the Guantabe fishing beds off the coast of Ecuador. Unless the overfishing is curtailed, several local species of fish may become extinct.
Sandra: The people who live on the Ecuadoran coast depend on the fish for their survival. To deprive them of this source of food might mean death by starvation.

Which of the following, if true, is the best objection that could be made from Jeanette’s point of view to counter Sandra’s point?

1] There are species of fish in other locations that are quite similar to the fish found in the Guantabe fishing beds.

2] Allowing particular species to breed unchecked can upset the delicate balance of the ecosystem in the entire area.

3] A steady diet of fish can raise the level of PCBs (known carcinogens) in the body of a human to dangerous levels.

4] In a study, it was found that the coastal Ecuadorians would willingly eat other foods when they were available.

5] The vast majority of the fish now taken from the Guantabe fishing beds is taken by commercial fishing ships that sell their catch in other countries.

E for me.

Kudos [?]: 165 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 28 Aug 2009
Posts: 185

Kudos [?]: 87 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

08 Feb 2010, 12:48
Argument talks about NOT CURTAILING FISHING stating that FISH IS SOURCE OF FOOD WHICH ,IF DENIED,MIGHT LEAD TO HUMAN STARVATION

However,if it can be shown that FISHING IS BEING DONE MUCH BEYOND THOSE TO MAINTAIN HHUMAN SURVIVAL LEVELS,it can be used to justfy the curtailing of
FISHING....
only E could be used to counter that SINCE WE ARE ALREADY OVERFISHING..SO MUCH BEYOND THE SURVIVAL LIMITS OVER TO COMMERCIAL EXPORTS...we should
curtail fishing.

Kudos [?]: 87 [0], given: 1

Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Posts: 452

Kudos [?]: 108 [0], given: 10

### Show Tags

16 Apr 2010, 08:29
+ 1 E

Clearly attacks the Sanda's basic premise

Kudos [?]: 108 [0], given: 10

Manager
Joined: 07 Jan 2010
Posts: 240

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

### Show Tags

26 Apr 2010, 08:21
yeah ...E
The counterargument is based on local consumption. E negates that view.

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

Manager
Joined: 14 Apr 2010
Posts: 219

Kudos [?]: 226 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

06 Jul 2010, 02:59
I would like to know what is wrong with D?

Kudos [?]: 226 [0], given: 1

VP
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1480

Kudos [?]: 734 [0], given: 6

### Show Tags

13 Jul 2010, 13:57
E for me.

Kudos [?]: 734 [0], given: 6

Manager
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Posts: 157

Kudos [?]: 47 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2010, 01:53
Not D because D negates the premise given by Sandra " The people who live on the Ecuadoran coast depend on the fish for their survival. "

Wheras E restects Sandra claim, concidering what she is saying is true and at the same time bring up another claim ( export of fish) to proce her point.

So E
_________________

R E S P E C T

Finally KISSedGMAT 700 times 450 to 700 An exprience

Kudos [?]: 47 [0], given: 1

Manager
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Posts: 142

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 3

### Show Tags

15 Jul 2010, 02:13
Well, IMO the answer is E.
E attacks the Sanda's basic premise that the fishing is done by local and if disallowed, it will deprive people their staple food.

E my pick
_________________

consider cudos if you like my post

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 3

Manager
Joined: 25 Aug 2008
Posts: 220

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

Location: India
WE 1: 3.75 IT
WE 2: 1.0 IT

### Show Tags

15 Jul 2010, 03:24
_________________

Cheers,
Varun

If you like my post, give me KUDOS!!

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

Manager
Joined: 01 Oct 2010
Posts: 118

Kudos [?]: 276 [0], given: 172

### Show Tags

17 Jan 2011, 07:45
+1 for E.

_________________

I will greatly appreciate your KUDOS my friends!

Kudos [?]: 276 [0], given: 172

Manager
Joined: 07 Jul 2010
Posts: 92

Kudos [?]: 58 [0], given: 18

Location: Hanoi, Vietnam

### Show Tags

17 Jan 2011, 08:40
vscid wrote:
Jeanette: We must stop the overfishing of the Guantabe fishing beds off the coast of Ecuador. Unless the overfishing is curtailed, several local species of fish may become extinct.
Sandra: The people who live on the Ecuadoran coast depend on the fish for their survival. To deprive them of this source of food might mean death by starvation.

Which of the following, if true, is the best objection that could be made from Jeanette’s point of view to counter Sandra’s point?

1] There are species of fish in other locations that are quite similar to the fish found in the Guantabe fishing beds.

2] Allowing particular species to breed unchecked can upset the delicate balance of the ecosystem in the entire area.

3] A steady diet of fish can raise the level of PCBs (known carcinogens) in the body of a human to dangerous levels.

4] In a study, it was found that the coastal Ecuadorians would willingly eat other foods when they were available.

5] The vast majority of the fish now taken from the Guantabe fishing beds is taken by commercial fishing ships that sell their catch in other countries.

This question's reasoning is quite simple.
Jan: we should stop fishing
san: but it's the most important food.
So for Jan to counter San viewpoint, she must indicate that the majority of the caught fish is not for food => Choice E
_________________

Hung M.Tran
Faculty of Banking and Finance,
National Economics University of Vietnam

Kudos [?]: 58 [0], given: 18

Manager
Joined: 03 Sep 2010
Posts: 75

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 2

Location: Israel
GMAT 1: 660 Q47 V34
GMAT 2: 670 Q48 V34
GPA: 3.2
WE: Operations (Non-Profit and Government)

### Show Tags

17 Jan 2011, 14:26
+1 E.
Sandra - No fishing = starvation.
To make Sandra's point wrong we need to prove that the people in Ecuador could survive without fishing. Only E does that.

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 2

Re: Guantabe   [#permalink] 17 Jan 2011, 14:26
Display posts from previous: Sort by