Omega-3 fatty acid, found in cod liver, is found to

IMO E liver remains will reduce a good percent of fishing of cod.

I am confused between C and E. Can someone please explain?

E

Conclusion - As a cure for cancer is found in the cod liver, cod will be extensively fished to fetch the cure.

A. There is no other effective treatment for skin cancer today. - It strengthens the conclusion. Opposite answer
B. Business of such medicines takes decades to be profitable. - No reasoning can be established between profitability and conclusion.
C. Cod liver oil is already a profitable business but the species has continued to thrive. - It is a reverse answer and strengthens the conclusion of fishing.
D. Cod population is high in the Pacific Ocean where no fishing takes place. - It does not weaken again. It is outside the tangential of the stimulus.
E. The said medicine can also be produced from liver remains that are currently thrown away after extracting cod liver oil. - It weakens the conclusion. It hurts the reasoning error of cod fish being fished for obtaining the omega - 3 fatty acid. Without really catching the fish for obtaining the omega - 3 fatty acid, the thrown away fishes can be used to get the same hence there is no need for extensive fishing only to get the cure thing.

i am confused between option C and option E, with more inclination towards option C. The reason is that C suggests that despite cod liver oil being a profitable venture, the species is still flourishing. whereas option E suggests that remains can be used for medicines. this doesn't confirm that other cods need not be killed.there is a possibility that even after using the remains we need to kill even more cods. but in C, we can safely conclude that despite the increased demand of species, it will thrive as has been the case.

I'll help you with this.

Omega-3 fatty acid, found in cod liver, is found to be exceptionally valuable in curing skin cancer. Efforts are underway for introducing omega-3 cancer medicine in markets. The market size is estimated to be worth billions of dollars in revenues. Since this is a major scientific breakthrough in a vast, commercial market, it is inevitable that extensive cod fishing will lead the species to extinction.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?

A. There is no other effective treatment for skin cancer today.
B. Business of such medicines takes decades to be profitable.
C. Cod liver oil is already a profitable business but the species has continued to thrive.
D. Cod population is high in the Pacific Ocean where no fishing takes place.
E. The said medicine can also be produced from liver remains that are currently thrown away after extracting cod liver oil.

The argument states the future condition. the market size is ESTIMATED to be blah blah and hence this will lead to extinction of COD.
choice C -Cod liver oil is already a profitable business but the species has continued to thrive.
The cod liver oil RIGHT NOW IS PROFITABLE AND RIGHT NOW IS THRIVING. But the argument talks about future. What if the future fishing of cod would push the population of cod over the edge towards extinction?
your statement- , we can safely conclude that despite the increased demand of species, it will thrive as has been the case.
here you have mistakenly assumed that the presnt cod liver oil business is related to the oamega 3 acid. But the choice in no way says so. It just says that right now the population is thriving but what about the condition in the argument? the argument talks about future.

choice E-The said medicine can also be produced from liver remains that are currently thrown away after extracting cod liver oil
this implies that if 100 cods are killed maybe more than what we expected can be obtained. and the answer choice says so. that even after their death the medicine can still be produced by their bodies. so this gives us a possibilty of no extinction.

I don't like any option as the answer here. If I have to pick one, I will pick (C) and not (E).

Omega 3 in cod's liver is found to cure cancer.
So omega 3 medicine are going to be introduced in the market (worth billions in revenue).
This is a major scientific breakthrough in a vast, commercial market.

Conclusion: Extensive cod fishing will make species extinct.

A. There is no other effective treatment for skin cancer today.

Irrelevant. We are looking at a vast commercial application of this omega 3 medicine. Other treatments may or may not be there.

B. Business of such medicines takes decades to be profitable.

Irrelevant. Timeline of profitability, and perhaps linked extinction, is irrelevant.

C. Cod liver oil is already a profitable business but the species has continued to thrive.

This indicates that a commercial market already exists but the species is resilient. Perhaps cod farming is done, we don't know.Though the obvious question is whether it will survive another vast commercial application. Hence, I am not happy with this option but I have nothing else.

D. Cod population is high in the Pacific Ocean where no fishing takes place.

Considering that we are planning to support a vast commercial market, we may start fishing in Pacific ocean and deplete the fish there too. Doesn't weaken our conclusion.

E. The said medicine can also be produced from liver remains that are currently thrown away after extracting cod liver oil.

Currently, cod liver oil is extracted from cod liver. The medicine can be made from what remains. Ok, does cod liver oil have a commercial market? Don't know. If yes, how big is the commercial market? Don't know. We are expecting the medicine to have a vast commercial market. Is the current cod fishing enough to support a vast commercial market? Don't know. It doesn't do much to our conclusion.

Actually, options (C) and (E) together help in suggesting that cod may not go extinct.

VeritasKarishma Mam, in C. Cod liver oil is already a profitable business but the species has continued to thrive.
there might be way too many fishes in the sea .
in E) The said medicine can also be produced from liver remains that are currently thrown away after extracting cod liver oil.
It can be produced from some extra waste which was not used and hence will save fishes.

Please correct my logic.

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.