Most fish in the Red Sea eat corals as a part of the

Question

12. Most fish in the Red Sea eat corals as a part of the everyday diet. If fish does not consume the minimum amount of corals each day, the variety of colorful fish would decrease drastically, which harms the natural balance in the Red Sea's fauna. 
Which of the following conclusions matches the statements above the most?

a. Even though it is important to keep as many kinds of fish prosperous, people would never be able to revert the decreasing amount of corals in the Red Sea.
b. Corals are destroyed by industrialization and it's main outcome - pollution. Countries that border with the Red Sea should all group together and do everything possible to reduce and then totally eliminate the risks of destroying corals.
c. After fish in the Red Sea is used to eating less corals each day and the variety of fish decreases, this process would temporarily halt.
d. It is very important to preserve the fauna of the Red Sea for future generations, therefore governments of the countries that border with the Red Sea should grow corals in laboratories and then plant them in the Sea.
e. People should pay more attention to the fish that do not need to consume corals in order to remain fruitful and healthy. Therefore, even though the fauna of the Red Sea would be damaged, there would still remain a lot of beauty.

bpattnaik · Answer

Only C matches

ps_dahiya · Answer

I go for D.

GMATT73 · Answer

I`ll second that (D). Logically flows...

u2lover · Answer

I was looking at C and it seem the problem here "temporarily"... the argument doesn't say that such process would stop completely or temporarily... as far as I am concerned the variety will decrease and whatever happens after that I don't know (based on the premises)

D looks better... Since corals are part of the diet for fish, to preserve natural balance you need to make sure they eat corals... and if government plants corals then they try to preserve the balance

C is tricky, but D is correct

A B and E are out of scope

zoom612 · Answer

Only C can be a valid conclusion.

todinesh · Answer

I think B.

shahnandan · Answer

I second B.

Countries around the Red Sea should ensure that the corals are not destroyed as a reult of industrialisation and pollution, a step which will help preserve the fauna.

But D also somes close, but can we assume that growing corals in laboratories and then planting it in the sea might actually increase the population of corals and might lead to actually having a negative effect on the fauna.--reason I eliminated D.

jaynayak · Answer

Will go with D.

Talks about value of prserving the fauna and about the corrals.

B is also close but it doesnot talk about preserving the fauna.......

ywilfred · Answer

D should be it. It's the most logical conclusion what is presented in the passage -> i.e. If fish does not cosume the minimum amount of corals each day, the variety of fish decreases and this in turn upsets the balance of the red sea's fauna. 

So to prevent this, governments should take steps to ensure that the fauna of red sea is preserved.

shoonya · Answer

D for me as well.

please post the OA.

paddyboy · Answer

D.

Difficult choosing b/w B and D. Still not totally sure, but didn't select B as it is inserting a new assertion into the question - industrialization and pollution...

TestWriter · Answer

The correct answer is B. 
a. The question stem has no information about the amount of corals - whether it is increasing or decreasing. Out of scope.
b. Suggests a solution as the conclusion of the discussion.
c. Does not deal with issues presented in active way, therefore is a poor conclusion.
d. Out of scope.
e. Ridiculous and out of scope.

Most fish in the Red Sea eat corals as a part of the

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards