Lockeport's commercial fishing boats use gill nets, which kill many of

Let's not get deviated from the question: casts the most serious doubt on the argument (made for the proposal).,ie: The proposal can, therefore, be implemented without economic harm to Lockeport's commercial fishing boat operators.

A)In places where the use of tent nets has been mandated, there are typically fewer commercial fishing boats in operation than there were before tent nets came into use. -->>> Boats after rules < Boats before rules ---->> There was a economic harm >>> directly weakens our conclusion


C) is a clever trap that is touching the whole argument except conclusion which is to be weakened.

all other options can be easily eliminated because they are irrelevant to conclusion and argument too.

Hence, OA: A

Pls. HIT KUDOS
(need few kudos for needs )

MentorTutoring VeritasKarishma

Can you help me to reason out (D) vs not choosing (A)?


I need to weaken the proposal. What is the proposal?


So proposal is to save endangered species.


These facts support why the above implementation of above proposal shall be successful:
1. Fishing areas in similar places, which have been profitable, have already switched to tent boats, so Lockeport shall be too able to do so easily.
2. There is no harn to revenue earned by boat operators in Lockeport.


My proposal is to save endangered species. I found this option as out of scope.


Cause: As per argument: use of gill nets ; effect: species of fish becoming endangered.
If I remove the cause, there is no effect.
I thought this as a weakener since ultimately my proposal is to save endangered species.
However, it seems if removal of cause leads to removal of effect, in a way I am strengthening my causal relationship.

Let me know where I faltered in above.

Hello, adkikani. Thank you for detailing how you arrived at your conclusion. I can see how a tight reading in this case caused you to miss the overall point. The conclusion is that the proposal can... be implemented without economic harm to Lockeport's commercial fishing boat operators. The focus is not so much on the endangered species of fish, but on those who do the fishing. Your goal is to show how, if the proposal were implemented, there could be economic harm to Lockeport's commercial fishing boat operators. Choice (D) removes the target group from the equation, and, by extension, it does not address the economic ramifications of implementing the proposal. Choice (A), on the other hand, allows us to see that the example used to justify implementing the proposal, that profitable commercial fishing boats in similar areas have already switched over to tent nets, does not hold water (pardon the pun). Once the proposal has been mandated, fewer commercial fishing vessels have typically operated within those waters. Thus, we can appreciate how the proposal may cause economic harm to Lockeport's commercial fishing boat operators. (Some of them might leave to fish elsewhere.)

Remember, to cast doubt on an argument, you have to stick to the exact premises and conclusion of that argument. You cannot choose to focus on one aspect of the argument at the exclusion of, well, the conclusion itself.

If you have further questions on this one, I would be happy to help out.

- Andrew

Step 1: Identify the Question

The phrasing most serious doubt in the question stem indicates that this is a Weaken the Argument question.


Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument

L: gill nets = kill (endangered)

Comm: tent nets = NO kill (throw back endang.)

similar areas + switch to tent nets = still profitable

Ⓒ tent nets in L → NO econ harm


Step 3: Pause and State the Goal

On Weaken questions, the goal is to find a piece of information that makes the conclusion less likely to be valid. In this case, the argument believes that mandating tent nets will not harm the commercial fishing operators because commercial boats in a similar area have switched and remain profitable. A correct answer will indicate a reason that tent nights would harm the local operators.



Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right

(A) CORRECT. The argument depends on the idea that boats in a similar area are still profitable even after switching to tent nets. But what if there are fewer boats in operation after the tent net mandate. This is an example of survivorship bias in a conclusion: the conclusion focuses only on the outcome of the boats that survived and ignores the negative outcome of the boats that failed. If the mandate is putting boats out of operation, this would be a negative economic impact. This choice weakens the argument.

(B) If gill nets require more repairs than tent nets, this would actually be a reason to support the plan to move to tent nets. This choice strengthens the argument, and is therefore the opposite of what the question is asking for.

(C) This answer questions the motivation behind the proposal in the first place: if recreational anglers are a bigger problem, then why go after commercial fishing boats? A common wrong answer type in Assumption Family questions is to focus on the motivation behind the plan rather than the plan itself. It doesn’t matter why the commission is proposing the plan; the focus is on whether the plan (once enacted) will have a negative impact on commercial fishing boat operators.

(D) This answer questions the motivation behind the proposal in the first place: if gill nets didn’t cause the fish to become endangered, why work to eliminate them? A common wrong answer type in Assumption Family questions is to focus on the motivation behind the plan rather than the plan itself. It doesn’t matter why the commission is proposing the plan; the focus is on whether the plan (once enacted) will have a negative impact on commercial fishing boat operators.

(E) The commercial value of the endangered species of fish does not impact whether the use of tent nets will cause economic damage to the boat operators. If the endangered fish have no commercial value, then there is no difference between catching a dead endangered fish using a gill net and catching and releasing a live endangered fish using a tent net.

Summary of the argument:
1. Gill nets (let's call them X) are being used currently, but these nets negatively impact endangered fish species
2. The law makers propose the use of Tent nets (let's call them Y) which do not pose any threat to the endangered fish species
3. Certain profit making fishing companies have successfully implemented Y
4. Using this evidence (from pt. 3) the law makers have concluded that the transition from X to Y can be made without any negative economic impact on the local fishing companies
5. We have been asked to weaken pt. 4

A. In places where the use of tent nets has been mandated, there are typically fewer commercial fishing boats in operation than there were before tent nets came into use
This option provides evidence that the number of boats reduce after the transition from X to Y. In simpler words, the transition to Y has negative impact on the local fishing companies. This is what we have been looking for in order to weaken pt. 4

B. Even when used properly, gill nets require many more repairs than do tent nets
This tells us that Y requires fewer repairs but does not clarify the amount/repair. Even with fewer repairs the repair schedule on Y might be very expensive

C. Recreational anglers in Lockeport catch more fish of endangered species than do commercial fishing boats
This tells us anglers are responsible partly for the problem but does not provide any insight on the impact that transition from X to Y might have on the local fishing companies

D. The endangered species of fish in Lockeport's commercial fishing area did not become endangered as a result of the use of gill nets by fishing fleets
E. The endangered species of fish caught by Lockeport's commercial fishing fleet are of no commercial value
Again, options D and E do not provide any insight on the impact that transition from X to Y might have on the local fishing companies

Ans. A

Thank you for this explanation, AndrewN. In relation to answer choice B (Even when used properly, gill nets require many more repairs than do tent nets) - if the gill nets require frequent repairs doesn't this also cause monetary harm?

Hello again, davidbeckham. If you read (B) carefully, you will appreciate that monetary costs associated with gill nets would hamper the Lockeport fishermen under the current setup, and that if tent nets require fewer repairs, the proposal is better supported... in fact the opposite of what we are looking to do. (Be careful not to get tangled up in which nets are doing what. High costs to repair gill nets favors a switch to tent nets; high costs to repair tent nets might be a reasonable answer to the question.)

Thank you for following up with me. I hope that helps.

- Andrew

VeritasKarishma - I have a doubt regarding A. Can't we assume that since there are fewer commercial boats, Lockeport's boats can make good profit catching more number of fish ? What if only small number of boats have switched over to tent nets ?

can you please throw some light on this perspective ?

Hey, I can share my thoughts while you wait for an expert's reply. I will try to answer both the questions in separate points -
1. The option is implying that the some commercial boats ran out of business or something bad happened, hence an economic harm. Yes, I get your point that the it may reduce competition amongst the remaining boats, and the remaining boats can earn more profit. But that is a very narrow approach and looks right only if you are actually working for those remaining boats. The boats that were discontinued definitely suffered economic harm, loss of jobs, etc so we cannot disregard that.
2. Well, the use of tent nets was "Mandated" so you cant say that only a small number of boats switched.

Hope this helps!

The argument depends on the fact that commercial boats in similar areas that have been made to switch to tent nets are profitable. Note that it is not an option. The use of tent nets has been mandated. So in those areas, everyone needed to switch to tent nets.

But what if before the tent nets, there were 100 profitable boats and now there are only 60? 40 have gone out of business and the rest 60 are profitable.
Can we say that there was no economic harm?
No. If all 100 were surviving profitably, and the profits were no different from before, we could have said that there is no economic harm to the commercial fishing industry in that area from tent nets.

Here's my take on this question...

We're looking for an answer choice that weakens the argument made for the proposal that tent nets, which do not kill fish, be used instead of gill nets. The argument uses the evidence that profitable commercial fishing boats in similar areas have already switched over to tent nets to conclude that the proposal's implementation will not result in any economic harm to Lockeport's commercial fishing operators. It's worth noting that the argument takes for granted that because other boats are profitable, Lockeport's boats will also be profitable. The argument doesn't take into consideration that these "other profitable" boats could have seen a decline in profitability as a result of introducing these tent nets. It could also be possible that these other profitable boats received financial incentives to adopt these tent nets, that they had to reduce costs elsewhere to maintain profitability or that any other reason contributed to their profitability.

(A) - Correct - This answer choice implies that the use of tent nets put the fishing boats that are not currently in operation out of business or forced them to relocate, and hence the proposal is likely to result in economic harm to lockeport's commercial fishing boat operators

(B) - Incorrect - This strengthens the argument because it suggest that savings from reduced repairs will be realised when replacing gill nets with tent nets.

(C) - Incorrect - This is irrelevant because we're only interested in commercial fishing boats

(D) - Incorrect - This is irrelevant. Regardless of how the fish became endangered to start off with, the fact still stands that gill nets kill many of the netted fish, including some fish of endangered species.

(E) - Incorrect - This is irrelevant. Whether or not the endangered fish are of commercial value, they need to be protected. This answer choice does nothing to help weaken the argument that the proposal can be implemented without economic harm to lockeport's commercial fishing boat operators.

Lockeport's commercial fishing boats use gill nets, which kill many of the netted fish, including some fish of endangered species. The fishing commission has proposed requiring the use of tent nets, which do not kill fish; boat crews would then throw back fish of endangered species. Profitable commercial fishing boats in similar areas have already switched over to tent nets. The proposal can therefore be implemented without economic harm to Lockeport's commercial fishing boat operators.

My understanding of this passage was that we need to think about what would cause no harm to the operators

Which of the following, if true, casts the most serious doubt on the argument made for the proposal?


A. In places where the use of tent nets has been mandated, there are typically fewer commercial fishing boats in operation than there were before tent nets came into use.

This doesn't mean that operators would be harmed, they could go to diff city and earn their wages

B. Even when used properly, gill nets require many more repairs than do tent nets.

C. Recreational anglers in Lockeport catch more fish of endangered species than do commercial fishing boats.

D. The endangered species of fish in Lockeport's commercial fishing area did not become endangered as a result of the use of gill nets by fishing fleets.

E. The endangered species of fish caught by Lockeport's commercial fishing fleet are of no commercial value.
This will definitely cause economic harm to the operators as they'll need to but new tents for fishes that hold no commercial value

Can anyone shed some light on this?

The conclusion: the proposal won't harm economically.
Basis of this conclusion: because profitable boats have adapted to tent nets.
In summary: no economic harm because many profitable boats already adapted to new type of tents.
What is fault: basis on which this conclusion is made has fault.
A says: there are not many boats .
What does it mean? you should not make a conclusion based on few numbers only. So how can we say there won't be any loss as we don't have sufficient numbers.

How do we weaken a conclusion:
Weaken the connection between premise and conclusion.
That's what is done here with option A.

I hope it is clear.

These questions typically fall under "they have a proposal/plan" and usually follow the same pattern.

Someone will suggest a plan of action ("proposed requiring the use of tent nets") and outline the expected result from this course of action ("be implemented without economic harm to Lockeport’s commercial fishing boat operators"). The correct answer will attack the specific aim of the plan -- this is the part we need to examine closely.

We are looking for an answer that suggests it is possible for the proposal to cause economic harm to Lockeport's commercial fishing operators. What piece of unstated information would lead us to believe this can happen? Only choice A does this, explaining that there are fewer boats in operation.

Fewer boats = less competition.

Choice A wins.

Correct Option A

Information:
Lockeport's commercial fishing boats use gill nets,
which kill many of the netted fish,
including some fish of endangered species.

Argument:
The fishing commission has proposed requiring the use of tent nets,
which do not kill fish;
boat crews would then throw back fish of endangered species.

Premise to support Argument:
Profitable commercial fishing boats in similar areas have already switched over to tent nets.

Conclusion: The proposal of tent net can therefore be implemented without economic harm to Lockeport's commercial fishing boat operators.

Which of the following, if true, casts the most serious doubt on the argument made for the proposal?

A. In places where the use of tent nets has been mandated,
there are typically fewer commercial fishing boats in
operation than there were before tent nets came into use.
Correct: this raise doubt in Argument, if tent nets are made mandate, and says which do not kill fish, max fishing should be done in this region, with max boat visibility, it indicates max fish population allocated area, which would be profitable to Lockeport’s fishing organisation

B. Even when used properly, gill nets require many more repairs than do tent nets.
Wrong: Strengthen the argument

C. Recreational anglers in Lockeport catch more fish of endangered species than do commercial fishing boats.
Wrong: Strengthen the argument

D. The endangered species of fish in Lockeport's commercial fishing area did not become endangered as a result of the use of gill nets by fishing fleets.
Wrong: This strengthen the premise of Lockport’s use of gill nets, not the argument, which is profitable and safety of endangered fish.

E. The endangered species of fish caught by Lockeport's commercial fishing fleet are of no commercial value.
Wrong: Irrelevant

Hi AndrewN,

I have a small query. I see an unstated assumption being made in (A), that is, a decrease in the number of boats -> economic loss for the fisherman.
But, the stimulus does not direct towards that causal relationship at all. So, is it okay to make that assumption? Because it could very well be a case where the fisherman switched professions for a "better business" elsewhere without fishing necessarily harming their pockets. Say, they were earning 'x' amount before the reforms, and their income remained 'x' after the reform, but they found a new business idea that earns them 'x + y' amount. So, they could make the switch from one profession to another without necessarily being beaten by the reformed fishing industry.

My issue with (A) lies in this connection that we have to make with the "decrease in the number of boats" and the "economic loss".

Regards,

Yes, PyjamaScientist, there is an assumption that must be made for answer choice (A) to work, but I do not think it is an unreasonable assumption. If there were currently 100 commercial fishing boats in Lockeport and even 10 of them were decommissioned if tent nets came to be used, then the crews or operators of those 10 vessels would need to find other work, plain and simple. Some of them might indeed switch professions and make more money or move elsewhere to ply their trade, but such a move could be seen as a loss to Lockeport's fishing operators. Keep in mind, without economic harm is an extreme condition, one in which everybody must make out. In my example, it is highly doubtful that 10 different crews (since operators need not be interpreted to mean captains only) would all make out economically if their vessels were decommissioned as a result of the proposal being implemented.

If there is another answer choice you would like to get behind, I would be happy to hear your views. Remember, your goal is not to find any crack in the seams of every answer choice, but to select an option that most reasonably follows the logical pattern that is brought to bear in the passage, in accordance with what the question is asking you to do.

- Andrew