parkhydel wrote:
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.
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.
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.
CR51520.02
Lockporte boats use gill nets. So the endangered fish caught are killed in them.
Use tent nets. Fish are not killed. So endangered fish can be freed.
Profitable commercial fishing boats in similar areas have already switched over to tent nets.
Conclusion: Tent nets can be used without economic harm.
Note that there is only one actual premise in the argument - that profitable boats in similar areas have already switched to tent nets. Rest is all context to explain us what gill nets and tent nets are. Using this premise, we are concluding that in Lockport too, we can adopt tent nets without economic harm.
We need to cast doubt on 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 tells us that in the places we are talking about in our premise, there are fewer commercial fishing boats today. It means some commercial boats went out of business or did not find tent nets profitable enough. Whatever the cause, the point is that it seems there would be economic harm. Hence our conclusion "without economic harm" may not be justified. Correct.
B. Even when used properly, gill nets require many more repairs than do tent nets.
Favours tent nets. Does not harm our conclusion.
C. Recreational anglers in Lockeport catch more fish of endangered species than do commercial fishing boats.
Irrelevant. The comparison doesn't affect us either way.
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.
It is irrelevant why the fish became endangered - was it overfishing or some disease or low on food etc, it doesn't matter to our argument at all. The point is only this - if we now switch to tent nets, will there be any economic impact?
E. The endangered species of fish caught by Lockeport's commercial fishing fleet are of no commercial value.
If anything, it helps our plan. The fishermen will be required to free the endangered fish. If they have no commercial value, it means no impact economically.
Answer (A)
Thanks for wonderful explanation.
As per my understanding option E don't have any impact on argument .
If the endangered fish caught at Lockeport don't have any commercial value then than fisherman would avoid fishing those endangered fishes. So as a result it don't have any impact on argument. Could you please evaluate my reasoning.