Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
24 Mar 2020, 04:37
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
85%
(hard)
Question Stats:
56% (02:21) correct
44%
(02:41)
wrong
based on 610
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Researchers in South Australia estimate changes in shark populations inhabiting local waters by monitoring what is termed the “catch per unit effort” (CPUE). The CPUE for any species of shark is the number of those sharks that commercial shark-fishing boats catch per hour for each kilometer of gill net set out in the water. Since 1973 the CPUE for a particular species of shark has remained fairly constant. Therefore, the population of that species in the waters around South Australia must be at approximately its 1973 level.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) The waters around South Australia are the only area in the world where that particular species of shark is found.
(B) The sharks that are the most profitable to catch are those that tend to remain in the same area of ocean year after year and not migrate far from where they were born.
(C) A significant threat to shark populations, in addition to commercial shark fishing, is “incidental mortality” that results from catching sharks in nets intended for other fish.
(D) Most of the quotas designed to protect shark populations limit the tonnage of sharks that can be taken and not the number of individual sharks.
(E) Since 1980 commercial shark-fishing boats have used sophisticated electronic equipment that enables them to locate sharks with greater accuracy.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) The waters around South Australia are the only area in the world where that particular species of shark is found.
(B) The sharks that are the most profitable to catch are those that tend to remain in the same area of ocean year after year and not migrate far from where they were born.
(C) A significant threat to shark populations, in addition to commercial shark fishing, is “incidental mortality” that results from catching sharks in nets intended for other fish.
(D) Most of the quotas designed to protect shark populations limit the tonnage of sharks that can be taken and not the number of individual sharks.
(E) Since 1980 commercial shark-fishing boats have used sophisticated electronic equipment that enables them to locate sharks with greater accuracy.
05 Apr 2020, 00:54
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
So CPUE is (Number of sharks) /( Hour * Kilometer) Now since 1973 CPUE has remained constant. Passage assumes THE NUMBER of sharks or the Population of Sharks has remained constant. We are asked to weaken the Argument.
Let CPUE in 1973 be 12/4 = 3
So we have to prove that the Population ( Number of Sharks ) has NOT remained constant, yet CPUE has somehow remained constant. How can we do this? There are two ways we can keep the CPUE constant yet vary the population:
a) We can INCREASE the Numerator (Population) and increase accordingly the Denominator ( time and Distance of net ) hence this is one way, we could keep CPUE constant, yet NOT keep the population constant. This could weaken the Argument. e.g.15/5=3
b) We can DECREASE the Numerator (Population) and decrease accordingly the Denominator ( time and Distance of net ) hence this is another way, we could keep CPUE constant, yet NOT keep the population constant. This could weaken the Argument too.
e.g.6/2=3
Let's see the options:
(A) Does not relate any way to the numerator or Denominator, cannot help to weaken the Argument - INCORRECT.
(B) Does NOT help to weaken either, in an INDIRECT way says population has in fact remained constant, because no migration has taken place. INCORRECT.
(C) Talks about another cause by which Shark population is affected,but does not help to address whether population has actually increased or decreased. Irrelevant. INCORRECT.
(D) Not in line with our pre- thinking, does not help to weaken the Argument. Irrelevant. INCORRECT.
(E) This tells us that Sophisticated electronic equipment, helps to locate shark with greater accuracy, so now no need to set huge gill net in miles of water. Since we know where the shark is , we can directly cast our net in that area. This will certainly help to reduce our net distance and hence our denominator, so there could be less sharks ( less population ) and we are catching them with less miles of net, because of our sophisticated equipment. This is keeping the CPUE constant. Hence this option definitely helps to weaken the argument. CORRECT.
Ans- E
Hope it's clear.
General Discussion
23 Oct 2023, 05:39
Kudos
Bookmarks
Totally picked option E.
but as it is a weaken question , technically we don't need to explain the conclusion or give a reason and thus any option that makes the methodology seem inaccurate weakens it methodology being using CPUE for determining change in shark population. C and D both give a reason to believe it is not an accurate or reliable method to come to that conclusion.
What is the source ?
but as it is a weaken question , technically we don't need to explain the conclusion or give a reason and thus any option that makes the methodology seem inaccurate weakens it methodology being using CPUE for determining change in shark population. C and D both give a reason to believe it is not an accurate or reliable method to come to that conclusion.
What is the source ?
