Samuel is obviously a bad fisherman. During the past season, in which

I was debating between C and D, and ultimately picked C.
C-was unable to fish for 1 week.
D-used experimental bait. You have to assume that the experimental bait was worse than the original bait.

Does someone have the official answer?

Same here buddy. I though C was stronger

What's the OA brother?

Cheers!
J

OA is D. I think source is "Kaplan" (not sure how it got hyperlinked, I didn't do it)!

With C, even if Samuel did not fish for 1 week, it is possible he caught more fish in rest of 3 weeks. It is also possible that he caught less fish. But both cases are possible hence C leaves ambiguity.

D clarifies Samuel followed orders of the captain and used experimental bait. It also states that rest of the fisherman on the boat did not follow captain's orders. So they used better baits giving them unfair advantage over Samuel. This means Samuel's bad catch was NOT due to him being bad fisherman. Thus D weakens the argument.

Hope it helps.

This argument is of Specific to Generic Form.

Specific Info: He didnt catch many fish last season
General: He is a bad Fisherman.

Weakener: May be his was not well during those 4 months or he was doing something different.

A) Two seasons ago, Samuel fished on another boat off Dutch Harbor and caught more fish than any other member of that boat. : We are not bothered about 2 season ago. Lets talk about last season only. Incorrect
B) Before becoming a fisherman, Samuel piloted a fishing boat whose members regularly caught record numbers of fish. : What did he used to do is not my concern? IRRELEVANT.
C) While fishing this past season, Samuel fell sick for a week and did not catch any fish during this time. : Did he fell sick during those 4 months only. A good Trap.
D) Unlike the other fishermen on his boat, at the order of the captain, Samuel fished this past season with experimental bait. Yes, He did something different. So, this bait could be the reason not Samuel.
E) Amongst the fishing community in Dutch Harbor, Samuel has a reputation for being an especially bad fisherman. : IRRELEVANT

Hi Experts,

In choice D, what if the experimental bait is actually better than the original bails that the others used , and still Samuel did catch fewer fish?

If this is the case, is it still a weakening?

Please explain.

Thank you.

Hi

Since we're all confused between C and D

I'll elaborate those two options only.

C : It states that samuel was sick during one week in which he caught no fish. This clearly states the reason and the fact that he did not catch any fish for a week so it could be a valid option.

D : It says that samuel used an experimental bait on the order of the captain unlike other fishermen. This could be a reason if we assume that the experimental bait was bad and normal bait was better.

Hence, C makes more sense to me.

GMATNinja daagh .
It is possible that.
C- he fell sick for a week and caught 1 fish less than others.
D- he caught 99percent less fishes than others with this experimental bait makes him a bad fisherman.
how to choose between these 2.
Can you explain C and D.

My question is how are we supposed to assume experimental bait is bad? What if Samuel is a horrible fisherman so he was chosen to use the bait because it was supposed to help him catch more fish? This argument assumes that the bait was faulty but instead it could further strengthen the conclusion that the guy is so bad he got beat out by his boat mates despite having a competitive advantage. Is there some rule that GMAT logic assumes experimental is a bad thing.

Can any moderator complete the option E in the original question? It is a bit distracting to have an incomplete answer choice.

Just for reference: E) Amongst the fishing community in Dutch Harbor, Samuel has a reputation for being an especially bad fisherman.

Thank you!

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

The conclusion to the argument is that "Samuel is obviously a bad fisherman" while the premise is Samuel's poor fishing performance relative to the peers on his fishing boat this past season.

The argument is flawed as the conclusion does not follow from the premise. The line of reasoning fails to take into consideration other possibilities for Samuel's performance this past season: perhaps Samuel fished with different bait. Similarly, just because Samuel caught fewer fish in one season than five other individuals does not mean that he is a bad fisherman. It simply means that he caught fewer fish than five individuals in one season. This season could have been an exception in Samuel's career or his teammates could be far above average.

A. The same logical flaws are at play in this answer (except in reverse). Using one season and a comparison to the fishermen on one boat does not provide a wide enough basis to make a judgment about a fishermen's ability relative to all other fishermen. Comparing this past season with another season still does not help to explain Samuel's poor performance this season (whereas knowing that Samuel used experimental bait this season would provide a justification for why Samuel caught few fish yet was still not a terrible fisherman).

B. Samuel's performance as a pilot does not relate to his ability as a fisherman. This answer is off topic.

C. On first glance, this looks like a good answer. However, it does not consider whether Samuel's teammates were sick during the same period. Perhaps one of Samuel's teammates was sick for two weeks.

D. This answer highlights something that made Samuel's fishing performance uniquely different than his teammates. Moreover, Samuel did not make the choice to fish with alternative bait--his captain ordered him to do it. If Samuel made the choice to fish with alternative bait, it would be his poor fishing judgment that would be at fault. Similarly, the answer makes clear that no other fisherman on Samuel's boat faced the same predicament.

E. If anything, this answer strengthens the argument.

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.