Loss of the Gocha mangrove forests has caused coastal erosion, reducin

Premises:- 1. Loss of Gacha mangrove trees cause coastal erosion, reducing fish populations, which 2. caused GFC to fund dredging and shore activities.
2. GFC is going to replant mangrove trees and control it harvest with the replanting.

Conclusion:- With the controlled replanting, GFC will increase its net income. or It will get more money by harvesting than to keep some aside and use the rest to replant.

Now, it is a strengthen question, It should directly affect the conclusion.

Statements:-
1. No effect on conclusion. Only affects premise 1.
2. Again, no effect on conclusion.
3. It just tells what was the situation before. Not helpful.
4. Now, if they get an additional benefit by planting trees which can increase its revenue besides from the harvesting. GFC can increase its
net income. That is what this statement suggests. Increased Mangrove tress--> Increased Fishing---> Increased Revenue.
5. Only restates a fact. Not helpful.

IMO, Option D.

I skimmed over the actual name of the company "G Fishing Cooperative" and incorrectly marked (A); nontheless, I still think (D) requires a decent leap in the assumptions of GFC's activities - are we to assume they are a fishery? Cooperatives could be anything, perhaps they regulate fishing as implied by GFC's requirement to fund dredging.

Dear experts,

By POE, I could arrive at D.
But honestly I am not very convinced. As the given statement clearly identifies the source of income as "Given income from a controlled harvest of wood with continuing replanting", I would expect a strengthener has sth to do with replanting or exclusion of anything that prevents replanting effort. However, D introduces quite an irrelevant idea. Although it's totally possible to introduce new idea in strengthening question type, the new idea should at least bears some relevance to the given argument.

I hope to be enlightened on this.

I reasoned it out in the following manner:

Premise: Loss of Mangrove tree ---causes---> Coastal Erosion, Reduced Fish Population ---causes---> partially fund for dredging and new shore activities.
Plan: Replant Mangrove tree
AIM: Increase net income (net income is almost same as net profit)
Also given, wood harvesting with continuing replanting will add to net income.

Pre-phasing: Look for options which can Strengthen that "Replanting Mangrove tree will increase net income."

Here, with the answer choice (D), though it is not direct but replanting will renew coastal fishing grounds which will remove the requirement of partial funding and thus contributing to net income.

Loss of the Gocha mangrove forests has caused coastal erosion, reducing fish populations and requiring the Gocha Fishing Cooperative (GFC) to partially fund dredging and new shore facilities. However, as part of its subsidiary businesses, the GFC has now invested in a program to replant significant parts of the coast with mangrove trees. Given income from a controlled harvest of wood with continuing replanting, the mangrove regeneration effort makes it more likely that the cooperative will increase its net income.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument that mangrove replanting will increase the Gocha cooperative's net income?

A. The cost of dredging and shore facilities was shared with the local government.
B. The GFC will be able to hire local workers to assist with the mangrove replanting.
C. The GFC derives 10 percent of its revenue from salt-production facilities in an area previously cleared of mangroves.
D. Mangrove forests tend to increase the commercial fish populations in coastal fishing grounds.
E. A controlled harvesting of mangrove wood by the GFC would have little effect on coastal erosion.

Pre-thinking and POE gives here greater benefit.
For investment in the Gocha Mangrove Forest though cost of GFC is increasing but they the cooperative company will do if the it become sure about its future increase in the net income. So, I need pick a choice in which the net income of GFC will increase.

(A) and (B) It will help GFC to reduce cost in saving the magrove forest but doesn't say anything about increasing income.
C. GFC already has it.
D. YES, increased fish population will increase fishing ground and will lead increase net income of GFC.
E. This doesn't help GFC in increasing its income.

Ans. D.

dearGMATNinjaTwo, and
GMATNinja, VeritasKarishma, AnthonyRitz, CJAnish, MartyTargetTestPrep,AndrewN,VeritasPrepBrian

I picked up B ,as I though B eliminate a labor force problem. then it is more likely to replant.
the conclusion is" the income from a controlled harvest of wood with continuing replanting" makes a more likely increase their net income.

so why D, another reason for increase net income, is correct ? I crossed off it because I thought it provide another reason for increase income. it weakens that the income from wood makes the increase income.

please help

thanks in advance.

As we noted in our previous post, the verbiage of the question is key here. It asks how we could “strengthen the argument that mangrove replanting will increase the Gocha cooperative's net income.” So, it’s the mangrove replanting, NOT the controlled harvest, that must increase the Gocha cooperative’s net income.

The conclusion is NOT that “the income from a controlled harvest of wood with continuing replanting makes an increase in net income more likely.” Rather, the conclusion is that “the mangrove regeneration effort makes it more likely that the cooperative will increase its net income.” The author SUPPORTS this conclusion by noting that a controlled harvest of wood will provide income. But the author does NOT conclude that income from the controlled harvest makes the increase in income more likely. Rather, he/she concludes that the mangrove regeneration effort will makes the increase in income more likely.

Both the question and the conclusion are important because they affect how we go about strengthening the argument. Now, we’re simply considering whether answer choices strengthen the idea that the GFC’s income will increase when they replant mangroves, whether that increase comes by the controlled harvest or some other way. With that in mind, here’s (B):


That’s great that the GFC will be able to hire local workers, but what does it do for our argument? Maybe the GFC will have to pay local workers more, and it will hurt their profit margin. Or maybe the GFC will be able to pay local workers less, and it will help their net income. The problem is that (B) simply doesn’t give us enough information. You note that (B) maybe indicates that the GFC will be more likely to successfully replant mangroves. But the question assumes that mangrove replanting has taken place, and then asks what strengthens the argument that GFC’s net income will increase.

Because (B) provides no additional reason to believe GFC’s income will increase, we can eliminate it.

I hope that helps!

I'm not sure I understand why E is wrong here.

My train of thought is as follows:

If the controlled harvesting increases the impact of erosion then net income would fall because GFC would have additional expenses (dredging, more new facilities).

So by saying that the controlled harvesting does not impact erosion we know that costs are flat, but revenue is increasing, so net income would be increasing.

I picked answer (E).

I have two issues with answer (D) that I am struggling to understand.

1) How do we know that GFC even has a fishing operation? Just because of its name? That seems like a big assumption to make. It's not implausible to name a business something outside of the realm of its primary income source.

2) How do we know that increasing fish populations would increase net income? We don't know anything about the business of fishing. How do we know that fishing would have a positive margin and thus increased fishing would grow net income? Seems like a big assumption to make.

With (E) we know that revenue is increasing, and also that one form of cost is staying flat, so net income would be more likely to increase. Could someone help explain what is wrong with my train of thought?

Also, the OA says that option (E) is incorrect because we do not know the effect that coastal erosion has on GFC's net income. However the stem states that it has added additional costs for GFC for dredging and new facilities. Seems like those are direct expenses from coastal erosion that are lowering net income.

GMATNinja

Firstly, conclusion is about INCOME or in other words REVENUE not PROFIT which is revenue - costs.
So any option that talks about costs is completely irrelevant.


A. The cost of dredging and shore facilities was shared with the local government.

- Talking about costs while argument is about improving income

B. The GFC will be able to hire local workers to assist with the mangrove replanting.

- Talking about costs and has no impact on income

C. The GFC derives 10 percent of its revenue from salt-production facilities in an area previously cleared of mangroves.

- Can impact income "negatively". Reject. Or Can be a no-impact statement because we don't know if GFC is planning to reinstate mangroves in that salt-producing facility.

D. Mangrove forests tend to increase the commercial fish populations in coastal fishing grounds.

- Income is likely to increase. ACCEPT

E. A controlled harvesting of mangrove wood by the GFC would have little effect on coastal erosion.

- Talking about costs while argument is about improving income. Eliminating a possibility that a particular cost may not come up.

First, let’s take a look at (E):


The problem with (E) is that while it gives us SOME reason to believe that coastal erosion won’t get worse with the new plan, it does little to strengthen the idea that Gacha’s net income will increase. Sure, Gocha isn’t going to incur additional costs from dredging. But we still don’t have reason to believe that the overall plan will INCREASE net income.


Moreover, (E) doesn’t tell us that the plan will have NO effect on coastal erosion. It tells us that the plan will have LITTLE effect on coastal erosion. But it’s possible that a small negative effect on coastal erosion will cause a large reduction in fish populations, thus hurting GFC’s bottom line. (E) simply leaves too much room for speculation, so we can eliminate it.

We covered (D) in our previous post, but we’ll address your two questions here.

First, it’s fair to assume that a fishing cooperative is involved in fishing. A cooperative, by definition, is “a farm, business, or other organization which is owned and run jointly by its members, who share the profits or benefits.” It’s not a big assumption to conclude that a fishing cooperative’s main business is fish.

Second, it must be the case that fishing has a positive margin. Otherwise, the fishing cooperative would have gone out of business and ceased to exist. Therefore, if fish are more abundant, more fish are likely to be caught and sold, increasing GFC’s net income. Even if GFC chooses not to catch more fish (which would be strange for a fishing company), it’s likely that the increased number of fish in the sea would make it easier to catch fish and decrease GFC’s cost.

For those reasons, (D) strengthens the argument and is the best answer choice.

I hope that helps!

Isnt 'LITTLE'~ No and 'A LITTLE'~ a few, some minor quantity. Sometimes, I find 'little' more emphatic than 'no'. For instance, "He was a reckless driver; he showed little concern for traffic rules". Is my understanding correct?

GMATNinja, GMATNinjaTwo, IanStewart, MartyTargetTestPrep, RonPurewal, KarishmaB, MarkSullivan, AjiteshArun, EMPOWERgmatRichC, mikemcgarry, DmitryFarber, sayantanc2k, TommyWallach
My reasoning was similar to that of Tracy and hence I chose E thinking that the right choice should have sth to do with wood harvesting. So are we saying the question stem expands the scope beyond 'wood harvesting' by dropping those words?

StandardizedNerd

You're reading too much into the word "given." It basically means "since we know this," but it doesn't mean we must discard all other premises or concerns. I wouldn't have written the sentence that way, but the conclusion is about the cooperative increasing its overall income, and it's a fishing cooperative, so income from fishing is in no way an expansion of scope.

Hi
I have rejected C because the conclusion is about if mangrove regeneration could help the corporation increase its net income and deriving 10% of its revenue from salt-production facilities would not support it in anyway. Is that correct?

We're looking to strengthen the argument that "the mangrove regeneration effort makes it more likely that the cooperative will increase its net income."

(C) tells us that GFC is making money from facilities that are located where there used to be mangroves. So, if that's where the mangroves will be replanted and the facilities have to shut down, then the GFC might actually LOSE the revenue generated by those facilities. Or if the facilities have to relocate, then there would certainly be costs associated with that move and net income would decrease. This would weaken the argument that the GFC will increase its net income.

Of course, the passage says that the GFC will replant "significant parts of the coast," not the entire coast. So it's possible that the salt factories would continue on as usual, and will neither add nor detract from the current net income.

On the whole, (C) can either weaken or not impact the argument, but it certainly can't strengthen it.

I hope that helps!

I am no expert but my reasoning for E is In E, Little effect on coastal errosion means no decrease or increase in coastal errosion. That's why E is wrong.

Posted from my mobile device

D. Mangrove forests tend to increase the commercial fish populations in coastal fishing grounds.

This statement, if true, would most strengthen the argument that mangrove replanting will increase the Gocha cooperative's net income. By linking the restoration of mangrove forests to increased fish populations, it suggests that the cooperative would benefit from more abundant fishing resources, which could lead to increased revenue.

Explanation for other options:

A. The cost sharing between the GFC and local government provides information about funding, but it does not directly connect the mangrove replanting to increased net income for the cooperative.

B. Hiring local workers to assist with mangrove replanting may be beneficial for the community, but it does not directly demonstrate how the replanting would lead to an increase in the GFC's net income.

C. This statement shows that the GFC has other revenue streams, but it does not directly support the idea that mangrove replanting will lead to increased net income for the cooperative.

E. While this statement claims that controlled harvesting would have little effect on coastal erosion, it does not directly connect mangrove replanting to an increase in the GFC's net income.

The traps in these options are designed to provide information that is only tangentially related to the main argument, such as cost-sharing arrangements (A), local workforce involvement (B), or alternative revenue sources (C). The focus should be on finding a statement that directly connects mangrove replanting to increased net income, which is statement D.

Posted from my mobile device