GMAT Question of the Day: Daily via email | Daily via Instagram New to GMAT Club? Watch this Video

 It is currently 25 May 2020, 09:52

### 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

# Nutritionists are advising people to eat more fish, since the omega-3

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 31 Aug 2018
Posts: 88
GMAT 1: 610 Q46 V28
Nutritionists are advising people to eat more fish, since the omega-3  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Dec 2019, 06:48
Quote:
(E) Some of the species that are now farmed extensively were not commonly eaten when they were only available in the wild.

GMATNinja wrote:
We want to know what happens when we start farming a wild species that is already in demand (i.e. in demand before farming starts). (E) only tells us about species that were not in demand before farming started! So this example is not relevant to the wild fish example. (Mmm... fish.)

I hope that helps a bit!

Hi GMATNinja

In my view option 'E' is in a way strengthening the argument, it says,

(E) Some of the species that are now farmed extensively were not commonly eaten when they were only available in the wild.

Some fish species are now being farmed that too extensively, meaning that there is a demand for these farmed fishes which are available in wild as well. This is helping the author's argument which says that farming of fish will ease pressure on the overfisihing of the wild fishes.

Please correct me if I am wrong in my reasoning in as to why this option is slightly supporting the argument.

Thanks
Saurabh
Manager
Joined: 31 Aug 2018
Posts: 88
GMAT 1: 610 Q46 V28
Re: Nutritionists are advising people to eat more fish, since the omega-3  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Dec 2019, 08:55
Sarjaria84 wrote:
Quote:
(E) Some of the species that are now farmed extensively were not commonly eaten when they were only available in the wild.

GMATNinja wrote:
We want to know what happens when we start farming a wild species that is already in demand (i.e. in demand before farming starts). (E) only tells us about species that were not in demand before farming started! So this example is not relevant to the wild fish example. (Mmm... fish.)

I hope that helps a bit!

Hi GMATNinja

In my view option 'E' is in a way strengthening the argument, it says,

(E) Some of the species that are now farmed extensively were not commonly eaten when they were only available in the wild.

Some fish species are now being farmed that too extensively, meaning that there is a demand for these farmed fishes which are available in wild as well. This is helping the author's argument which says that farming of fish will ease pressure on the overfisihing of the wild fishes.

Please correct me if I am wrong in my reasoning in as to why this option is slightly supporting the argument.

Thanks
Saurabh

Hi GMATNinjaTwo

Thanks
Saurabh
Manager
Joined: 06 May 2015
Posts: 61
Location: India
Schools: Darden '21
GPA: 4
Nutritionists are advising people to eat more fish, since the omega-3  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Dec 2019, 09:12
nycgirl212 wrote:
Official Guide for GMAT Verbal Review 2016
Practice Question
Question No.:21
Page: 127

Nutritionists are advising people to eat more fish, since the omega-3 fatty acids in fish help combat many diseases. If everyone took this advice, however, there would not be enough fish in oceans, rivers, and lakes to supply the demand; the oceans are already being overfished. The obvious method to ease the pressure on wild fish populations is for people to increase their consumption of farmed fish.

Which of the following, if true, raises the most serious doubt concerning the prospects for success of the solution proposed above?

(A) Aquaculture, or fish farming, raises more fish in a given volume of water than are generally present in the wild.

(B) Some fish farming, particularly of shrimp and other shellfish, takes places in enclosures in the ocean.

(C) There are large expanses of ocean waters that do not contain enough nutrients to support substantial fish populations.

(D) The feed for farmed ocean fish is largely made from small wild-caught fish, including the young of many popular food species.

(E) Some of the species that are now farmed extensively were not commonly eaten when they were only available in the wild.

What is required: raises the most serious doubt concerning the prospects for success
In other words, Weaken the argument by attacking the assumption

OA: D
Option D, "The feed for farmed ocean fish is largely made from small wild-caught fish, including the young of many popular food species."
directly hits the conclusion of the argument "The obvious method to ease the pressure on wild fish populations..." thus weakening the argument and breaking it down.

Options A,B,C & E are mostly irrelevant.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutors
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 3420
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Re: Nutritionists are advising people to eat more fish, since the omega-3  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jan 2020, 08:46
Sarjaria84 wrote:
Sarjaria84 wrote:
Quote:
(E) Some of the species that are now farmed extensively were not commonly eaten when they were only available in the wild.

GMATNinja wrote:
We want to know what happens when we start farming a wild species that is already in demand (i.e. in demand before farming starts). (E) only tells us about species that were not in demand before farming started! So this example is not relevant to the wild fish example. (Mmm... fish.)

I hope that helps a bit!

Hi GMATNinja

In my view option 'E' is in a way strengthening the argument, it says,

(E) Some of the species that are now farmed extensively were not commonly eaten when they were only available in the wild.

Some fish species are now being farmed that too extensively, meaning that there is a demand for these farmed fishes which are available in wild as well. This is helping the author's argument which says that farming of fish will ease pressure on the overfisihing of the wild fishes.

Please correct me if I am wrong in my reasoning in as to why this option is slightly supporting the argument.

Thanks
Saurabh

Hi GMATNinjaTwo

Thanks
Saurabh

Take a look at this post for a more thorough discussion of option (E).

One key element at play here is the author's exact conclusion: "The obvious method to ease the pressure on wild fish populations is for people to increase their consumption of farmed fish."

The author isn't arguing that people are likely to eat farmed fish, or that there is a demand to eat farmed fish. Instead, the author is saying that IF people increase their consumption of farmed fish, THEN the pressure on wild fish populations will be eased.

So, people don't have to like eating farmed fish -- what people prefer is irrelevant to the author's conclusion. Regardless of current or past demand for farmed fish, the author's argument would hold -- IF everyone held their noses and ate farmed fish, THEN the pressure on wild populations would be eased.

It's clear that (E) doesn't raise any serious doubts about the author's plan, so it can be safely eliminated.

I hope that helps!
_________________
GMAT/GRE tutors @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | YouTube | Blog | Bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal: RC | CR | SC

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: all videos by topic

SC articles & resources: How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

RC, CR, and other articles & resources: All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for \$29.99 | Time management on verbal

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations: All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply? Hit the request verbal experts' reply button; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
IIMA, IIMC School Moderator
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Posts: 1423
Location: India
WE: Engineering (Other)
Nutritionists are advising people to eat more fish, since the omega-3  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2020, 20:07

Am I falling into circular reasoning fallacy with approach mentioned towards the end?

Quote:
Nutritionists are advising people to eat more fish, since the omega-3 fatty acids in fish help combat many diseases. If everyone took this advice, however, there would not be enough fish in oceans, rivers, and lakes to supply the demand; the oceans are already being overfished. The obvious method to ease the pressure on wild fish populations is for people to increase their consumption of farmed fish.

(As per passage; There is no conclusion, hence no argument is presented.)
Cause:
increase farmed fish (FF) consumption
Effect:
reduce pressure on wild fish (WF) consumption

Quote:
(D) The feed for farmed ocean fish is largely made from small wild-caught fish, including the young of many popular food species.

I could understand that (D) says: If the food itself for FF is WF then WF population is going to be reduced, hence my conclusion that supply for WF shall be sufficient in future shall fall apart.

If FF feeds on WF, but people eat more FF then the less FF will CAUSE more WF in oceans and other places.

Sometimes, I cut off wrong choices easily, but spend more time to FIT correct ans to place.
_________________
It's the journey that brings us happiness not the destination.

Feeling stressed, you are not alone!!
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 10442
Location: Pune, India
Re: Nutritionists are advising people to eat more fish, since the omega-3  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2020, 22:13
3
nycgirl212 wrote:
Official Guide for GMAT Verbal Review 2016
Practice Question
Question No.:21
Page: 127

Nutritionists are advising people to eat more fish, since the omega-3 fatty acids in fish help combat many diseases. If everyone took this advice, however, there would not be enough fish in oceans, rivers, and lakes to supply the demand; the oceans are already being overfished. The obvious method to ease the pressure on wild fish populations is for people to increase their consumption of farmed fish.

Which of the following, if true, raises the most serious doubt concerning the prospects for success of the solution proposed above?

(A) Aquaculture, or fish farming, raises more fish in a given volume of water than are generally present in the wild.

(B) Some fish farming, particularly of shrimp and other shellfish, takes places in enclosures in the ocean.

(C) There are large expanses of ocean waters that do not contain enough nutrients to support substantial fish populations.

(D) The feed for farmed ocean fish is largely made from small wild-caught fish, including the young of many popular food species.

(E) Some of the species that are now farmed extensively were not commonly eaten when they were only available in the wild.

Problem: Not enough wild fish in oceans to handle increased consumption.
Plan: People should eat more farmed fish.

We need to weaken the plan. We need to find the option that suggests that the plan may not work.

(A) Aquaculture, or fish farming, raises more fish in a given volume of water than are generally present in the wild.

Good for our plan. We will be able to raise more fish per volume of water so farmed fish should be able to support increased demand.

(B) Some fish farming, particularly of shrimp and other shellfish, takes places in enclosures in the ocean.

Irrelevant.

(C) There are large expanses of ocean waters that do not contain enough nutrients to support substantial fish populations.

We already know that we don't have enough wild fish.

(D) The feed for farmed ocean fish is largely made from small wild-caught fish, including the young of many popular food species.

This says that increase in farmed fish will decrease wild fish population especially the young. This puts our plan in question. The wild fish population will suffer a lot if the new generation is wiped. Hence, this weakens our plan. We don't need to establish that the plan will definitely not work. We just need to doubt the plan. So we do not need to consider further "what if" scenarios. More information could have positive or negative impact on the plan - it doesn't matter. We only need to see how this information impacts our plan.

(E) Some of the species that are now farmed extensively were not commonly eaten when they were only available in the wild.

Irrelevant

_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Tutor
Joined: 16 May 2019
Posts: 709
Re: Nutritionists are advising people to eat more fish, since the omega-3  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Apr 2020, 03:41
1

Am I falling into circular reasoning fallacy with approach mentioned towards the end?

Quote:
Nutritionists are advising people to eat more fish, since the omega-3 fatty acids in fish help combat many diseases. If everyone took this advice, however, there would not be enough fish in oceans, rivers, and lakes to supply the demand; the oceans are already being overfished. The obvious method to ease the pressure on wild fish populations is for people to increase their consumption of farmed fish.

(As per passage; There is no conclusion, hence no argument is presented.)
Cause:
increase farmed fish (FF) consumption
Effect:
reduce pressure on wild fish (WF) consumption

Quote:
(D) The feed for farmed ocean fish is largely made from small wild-caught fish, including the young of many popular food species.

I could understand that (D) says: If the food itself for FF is WF then WF population is going to be reduced, hence my conclusion that supply for WF shall be sufficient in future shall fall apart.

If FF feeds on WF, but people eat more FF then the less FF will CAUSE more WF in oceans and other places.

Sometimes, I cut off wrong choices easily, but spend more time to FIT correct ans to place.

Hello, adkikani. I think VeritasKarishma has provided a fine analysis of the question above, so I will not reiterate. Speaking to your approach, any time you find yourself bending over backwards to argue against a reasonable answer, just move on and see whether any other answer touches on the main points and fits better. You do not have to make an on-the-spot determination. In many cases, you will find that you do less work for the correct answer after eliminating obviously incorrect options. The problem with your situation, as you called it above, is that you are not taking into account what is already taken for granted in the passage, that the oceans are already being overfished. So if, to use your reasoning above, [people] eat less FF, we CANNOT say that this action will CAUSE more WF in oceans and other places. People, apparently, are going to eat their fish, one way or another. Whether they eat wild-caught fish directly or indirectly, the problem of overfishing would not have been rectified.

- Andrew
Re: Nutritionists are advising people to eat more fish, since the omega-3   [#permalink] 06 Apr 2020, 03:41

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 27 posts ]