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

Question

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.

ID: 500283

arunabeshc · Answer

IMO D

a) Talks about the density of fish in farming - Out of Scope

b) nature of some fish farming is being discussed - Out of scope

c) Talks about the density of fish population in oceans - Out of scope

d) Gives info where farming depends on fish collected from oceans.. thereby giving evidence that to support farming fish from the oceans must be caught too.. a possible weakener to farming being the soln.- Hold

e) talks about the kinds of fish eaten - Out of scope

Hence D)

Sent from my SM-J500F using Tapatalk

adiagr · Answer

The argument states that an increase in farmed fish consumption will help in increasing the wild fish population. We have to capture an statement that actually shows that farm fish rearing will actually affect wild fish population growth in some way.

Option (D) shows that. So since the feed of farm fishes is made of wild fish, in any case, the wild fish population is getting affected.

Let us cross-check options one by one.

(a) Actually supports the idea of farm fishing. Does not raise doubt. So we cant select this one.
(b) Irrelevant. No discussion about farm fish.
(c) Again this statement supports the idea of farm fish. Reject this option.
(d) This statement actually raises doubt. Hold.
(e) This also supports farm feed idea.

(D) is the answer.

Abhishek009 · Answer

Eat fish = Combat diseases 
 Problem : There is not enough in the oceans and lakes ( If people start consuming fish ) fish due to overfishing 
 Solution : To ease pressure on wild fish  ---->  Increase consumption of farmed fish.

(D) Clearly calls into question the solution...

If feed for Farmed fish is made from the small wild-caught fish then the pressure on wild fish is not reduced and hence weakens the conclusion.

Hence the answer will clearly be (D)

Shalabh09 · Answer

We are looking for something to weaken the theory : "The obvious method to ease the pressure on wild fish populations is for people to increase their consumption of farmed fish"

Option D is the only one that talks about the fact the wild fish would still keep decreasing as they are the main food for the farmed fishes.

aj33 · Answer

There are 2 assumption that say the pressure on wild fish will not be reduced.
first is that the amount of omega even after increasing the consumption is not sufficient to match the needs for omega of wild. Therefore go to wild. 
The second is as mentioned in statement D. Which is weakened.
AC D is correct.

AnubhavK · Answer

D is the correct choice - Suggests the increasing consumption of farmed fish would require increased use of wild fish as feed for farmed fish and therefore would not ease pressure on wild fish populations.

vasuca10 · Answer

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

Our main CONCLUSION is that people increase consumption of farm fish so as to reduce the pressure on wild fish population.
We have to weaken the conclusion by selecting an answer choice which states the idea that consumption of wild fish population cannot be reduced and consequently the pressure from wild fish shall not be released

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

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

(C) There are large expanses of ocean waters that do not contain enough nutrients to support substantial fish populations.  This is a strengthener answer choice as it supports going for farm fish population instead of wild fish hence not a weakener

(D) The feed for farmed ocean fish is largely made from small wild-caught fish, including the young of many popular food species. 
 CORRECT, a weakener answer choice as if feed for farm fish is made from wild fish it would directly affect wild fish population 
(E) Some of the species that are now farmed extensively were not commonly eaten when they were only available in the wild.-  Incorrect as this answer choice strengthens the conclusion

shuvodip04 · Answer

The author concludes that:-

"The pressure on wild fish will be reduced if people increase consumption of farmed fish"

Given :- 1)Nutritionist are advising people to eat more fish.
2)Omega 3 in fish fights disease.
3)If everyone starts eating more fish there won't be enough fish in the ocean,rivers and lakes.
4)The oceans are already over fished.
Here the author assumes the following:-

Assumption :- The pressure on the wild fish will be reduced if people start consuming farm fish.Consuming farm fish will have no affect on the no. of fish in the ocean,rivers and lakes.

Possible weakener:- The statement which states that farm fishing will have effect on the number of fishes in the wild.

Option analysis:- 
(A) Aquaculture, or fish farming, raises more fish in a given volume of water than are generally present in the wild.- acts as a strengthener instead

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

(C) There are large expanses of ocean waters that do not contain enough nutrients to support substantial fish populations. whether the certain portion contains nutrients or not has no effect on whether the farm fishing will ease effect from fish in the wild

(D) The feed for farmed ocean fish is largely made from small wild-caught fish, including the young of many popular food species.- in line with our weakener. Hence correct

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

Chelsea212 · Answer

Hi everyone,

After I read this problem, answer choice (D) immediately stuck out to me as the correct answer. That said, I've been trying to get into the habit of finding 4 wrongs answers instead of 1 right one and so I wanted to comment on why the answer choice (E) is out of the running.

I understand why answer choices (A), (B) and (C) are incorrect; however, I can't completely justify why (E) is incorrect.

To weaken the conclusion, we need a statement that suggests that farming fish would not relieve the consumption demand of wild-caught fish. Answer choice (E) states that  some  of the species that are framed a lot weren't commonly eaten (i.e. in demand) when only wild-caught. When I'm considering answer choice (E), stand alone, it seems the statement does confirm that the demand on wild-caught fish would not be relieved. It's only when I compare it to the relative strength of answer choice (D) that I'm able to eliminate it.

GMATNinja  is there any chance that you might be able to respond?

GMATNinja · Answer

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!

I hope that helps a bit!

Sidmehra · Answer

Hi  GMATNinja ,

How can we say that they are talking about 'fish already in demand' because the paragraph just mentions 'farmed fish' ?'
If the farmed fish is not according to people's demand then they wont eat the farmed fish and the pressure on the wild fish wont be relieved.

Please let me know what am I missing

GMATNinja · Answer

The author's goal is to "ease the pressure on wild fish populations," and the solution that he/she proposes to reach this goal is "for people to increase their consumption of farmed fish."

So, we need to cast doubt on the argument that if people  do  increase their consumption of farmed fish, the pressure on wild fish populations will be eased.

(E) states that some fish that were not commonly eaten when only available from the wild are now farmed extensively. This doesn't particularly impact the author's argument, because we have no idea why the fish were not popular before they were farmed, or why they are popular now. Maybe they were not commonly eaten because they were exceedingly rare, or difficult to catch, or some other reason. The author's reasoning depends on increased consumption of farmed fish reducing pressure on wild fish, and the exact break down of which species are more commonly eaten when farmed, and why that is the case, is irrelevant.

Even if you read (E) to imply that people will be reluctant to eat farmed fish, this does not cast doubt on the author's plan -- regardless of people's preferences, the author is arguing for them to suck it up and eat farmed fish. We need to cast doubt on the idea that if people  do , in fact, increase their consumption of farmed fish, pressure on wild fish populations will be reduced.

Compare (E) with (D):
 
Here, people could follow the author's plan perfectly (eating only farmed fish), and yet there would  still  be pressure on wild fish populations, because the young of many wild-caught fish will die in the process.

This casts doubt on the idea that increasing consumption of farmed fish will ease the pressure on wild fish populations.

I hope that helps!

Sarjaria84 · Answer

Hi  GMATNinjaTwo

Can you please help me with my above query?

Thanks
Saurabh

GMATNinja · Answer

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!

adkikani · Answer

nightblade354   eakabuah   MentorTutoring   VeritasKarishma

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

(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

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.

BUT, what about below situation?
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.

KarishmaB · Answer

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

Answer (D)

AndrewN · Answer

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,    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.

Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

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

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

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

Prep Toolkit

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