Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game Authority

Hello, anumnit90. Thank you for drawing attention to this question. I would be happy to offer my thoughts on it in an effort to help you and the rest of the GMAT Club community. First, the passage:



What is going on here? I often find it useful to interpret these long-winded sentences in a simpler manner, sentence by sentence, as if you were hoping to explain the passage to a child. Here,

1) The commissioner is leading the public to believe that, in a nutshell, an increasing rate of fish caught equals a less endangered status for the fish.

2) Even if you are unsure about the word specious, jumping across that comma to unsound ought to reveal that the author of the passage, the environmentalist, disagrees with the view of the commissioner.

3) We then get an illustration (without peering ahead at the answer choices): an increasing rate of rainforests cut down equals a less endangered status for the rainforests.

4) Finally, the author proposes the real cause of the increased fish-catch: technology. In other words, the author believes that the increased fish-catch is not attributable to a greater number of fish, as the commissioner has put forth.

Now that we understand the passage, we can take a look at the question and answer choices.


The question is asking us to evaluate how the author--again, the environmentalist--presents his or her own position in the passage. I would not waste a lot of time brainstorming possible ideas, but I would go into the answer choices instead with an eye on disproving anything that was clearly off the mark.


Analysis: Although the environmentalist clearly does not see eye to eye with the commissioner, nowhere do I see anything about motives. I would expect to see some information about kickbacks from fishermen or the commissioner wanting to raise funds for some purpose by granting more fishing permits, anything that would implicate the commissioner. But all we have to lean on is poor reasoning, or, in the words of the environmentalist, a specious argument. We never get a glimpse into the why behind the what. Red light.


Analysis: This can be a tempting choice, since the position of the commissioner is definitely such an opposing position. Is the position self-contradictory, though? This makes me think of an old Monty Python sketch in which a... hunter of sorts states, "I love animals. That's why I like to kill 'em." Now that is self-contradictory, and if you appreciate dry British humor, you can have a laugh, too. In this passage, though, the commissioner does not hold an opinion that works against itself logically. For all we know, it could be true that the fish population has increased and that the fish could be no longer endangered. It is clear that the environmentalist would disagree with the view, but I cannot find anything to put my finger on that would indicate the author would call the position itself self-contradictory. If you were unsure at this point, just set the answer aside and look for more obvious targets. Yellow light.


Analysis: Does the environmentalist attack the argument of the commissioner? I think so. You might consider a less forceful word or phrase such as opposing or disagreeing with, but the two positions outlined in the passage are at loggerheads with each other, and to me, the environmentalist seems pretty heated. Is there an analogy present? Of course there is. The argument, A, is as unsound as B. Comparing the two arguments in such a manner is an analogy. I cannot find a flaw in this answer choice. Green light.


Analysis: It should be evident that we have no such data to examine, nor does the author reference such data. Rather, a vague number of in the first sentence is about as close as we get. Red light.


Analysis: Am I missing something here? What was proposed, and where does the passage focus on consequences? If you look at the last sentence again, the author even asserts, The real cause of.... Thus, the cause is under examination or debate, not any outcome. And if you can find a proposal lurking somewhere in the passage, please open my eyes. Red light.

This was a fun question, and any time I can invoke a comedy show or sketch and make it applicable, so much the better. If you have any questions, please let me know. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew