deep31993 wrote:
Well the thing that struck me here was continue to be endangered. How can we say that it still continue to be endangered?. What I could infer was this: Species is an endangered species.
Please help
I hope my analysis of the argument helps:
Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game Authority would have the public believe that increases in the number of marine fish caught demonstrate that this resource is no longer endangered. This is a specious argument, as unsound as it would be to assert that the ever-increasing rate at which rain forests are being cut down demonstrates a lack of danger to that resource. The real cause of the increased fish-catch is a greater efficiency in using technologies that deplete resources.
The environmentalist's statements, if true, best support which of the following as a conclusion?
Argument Analysis: FGA would want public to believe that increased number of fish caught => Marine Fish are no longer endangered but this argument raises serious doubt. It would be a folly to think that the more number of trees cut a particular time means that there is no danger to that resource. In fact, the real reason for increased fish catch is greater efficiency in fish catching technology.
Prethinking: FGA are telling a lie that the marine fish species are no longer endangered i.e marine fish species are still endangered.
(A) The use of technology is the reason for the increasing encroachment of people on nature.
Incorrect: I picked this initially not really having put much thought into the argument. This is a general statement and we cannot conclude from the above argument that technology usage is the reason for increasing intrusion of people on nature in general.
(B) It is possible to determine how many fish are in the sea in some way other than by catching fish.
Incorrect: The argument is talking about the reason for the increased number of fish caught and not the method by which caught fish are counted.
(C) The proportion of marine fish that are caught is as high as the proportion of rain forest trees that are cut down each year.
Incorrect: There is nothing in the argument given that links these two facts together. In fact the rain forest was taken in as an analogy rather than a direct comparison between the rain forest decline and the marine fish decimation.
(D) Modern technologies waste resources by catching inedible fish.
Incorrect: There is nothing in the argument that helps us conclude about inedible fish being caught by modern technologies.
(E) Marine fish continue to be an endangered resource.
Correct: Having done a bit of pre-thinking, it is possible to conclude that what the FGA states i.e marine fish species is no longer endangered is not true and that the marine fish species is still endangered or rather continues to be endangered.