It is currently 17 Oct 2017, 12:20

### 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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# This must be 780 level: The fishing industry cannot

Author Message
SVP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1500

Kudos [?]: 1445 [0], given: 2

Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
This must be 780 level: The fishing industry cannot [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2010, 11:46
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

22% (02:19) correct 78% (02:36) wrong based on 30 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

This must be 780 level:

The fishing industry cannot currently be relied upon to help the government count the seabirds killed by net fishing, since an accurate count might result in restriction of net fishing. The government should therefore institute a program under which tissue samples from the dead birds are examined to determine the amount of toxins in the fish eaten by the birds. The industry would then have a reason to turn in the bird carcasses, since the industry needs to know whether the fish it catches are contaminated with toxins.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
(A) The seabirds that are killed by net fishing do not eat all of the species of fish caught by the fishing industry.
(B) The government has not in the past sought to determine whether fish were contaminated with toxins by examining tissue samples of seabirds.
(C) The government cannot gain an accurate count of the number of seabirds killed by net fishing unless the fishing industry cooperates.
(D) If the government knew that fish caught by the fishing industry were contaminated by toxins, the government would restrict net fishing.
(E) If net fishing were restricted by the government, then the fishing industry would become more inclined to reveal the number of seabirds killed by net fishing.

Which one of the following, if true, most strongly indicates that the government program would not by itself provide an accurate count of the seabirds killed by net fishing?
(A) The seabirds killed by net fishing might be contaminated with several different toxins even if the birds eat only one kind of fish.
(B) The fishing industry could learn whether the fish it catches are contaminated with toxins if only a few of the seabirds killed by the nets were examined.
(C) The government could gain valuable information about the source of toxins by examining tissue samples of the seabirds caught in the nets.
(D) The fish caught in a particular net might be contaminated with the same toxins as those in the seabirds caught in that net.
(E) The government would be willing to certify that the fish caught by the industry are not contaminated with toxins if tests done on the seabirds showed no contamination.
_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Kudos [?]: 1445 [0], given: 2

Director
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Affiliations: University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 957

Kudos [?]: 902 [3], given: 36

Location: Singapore
Concentration: General Management, Finance
Schools: Chicago Booth - Class of 2015

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2010, 15:42
3
KUDOS
First one
--------
The government should institute a program to count the seabirds killed by net fishing because .....
It has to get information another way. The fishing industry is not cooperating. because it has to turn in the catch. Second an accurate count of govt investigation might result in restriction of net fishing.
C is correct. The rest are not hitting on the main problem.

Second one
----------
the government program would not by itself provide an accurate count of the seabirds killed by net fishing because ......
The fishing industry can investigate and get the information if a few of the seabirds killed by the nets were examined. The Govt investigation is an attempt to get the information. But the catch is "FEW seabirds killed by the nets" can be examined INSTEAD OF "tissue samples" from dead birds (more samples)
B is correct

A is a trap : Identification of the toxin is not the issue. The "catch contamination" is an issue. The answer is Y or N. Which toxins? has no bearing on the argument.
Premises : since the industry needs to know whether the fish it catches are contaminated with toxins.

Kudos [?]: 902 [3], given: 36

Manager
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Posts: 142

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 3

### Show Tags

19 Jul 2010, 01:00
very well explained by nusmavrik
excellent budy
_________________

consider cudos if you like my post

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 3

VP
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1478

Kudos [?]: 756 [0], given: 6

### Show Tags

19 Jul 2010, 21:04
for both questions.....

For the first I narrowed to B and C....but picked B....

and for second I narroewd to B and D....but picked D...:(

Kudos [?]: 756 [0], given: 6

Intern
Joined: 12 Jul 2010
Posts: 20

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 3

### Show Tags

19 Jul 2010, 21:22
I went for C and B too.

+1 for nusmavrik for the nice explanation!

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 3

Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Posts: 445

Kudos [?]: 107 [0], given: 157

### Show Tags

20 Jul 2010, 16:10
noboru wrote:
This must be 780 level:

The fishing industry cannot currently be relied upon to help the government count the seabirds killed by net fishing, since an accurate count might result in restriction of net fishing. The government should therefore institute a program under which tissue samples from the dead birds are examined to determine the amount of toxins in the fish eaten by the birds. The industry would then have a reason to turn in the bird carcasses, since the industry needs to know whether the fish it catches are contaminated with toxins.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
(A) The seabirds that are killed by net fishing do not eat all of the species of fish caught by the fishing industry.
(B) The government has not in the past sought to determine whether fish were contaminated with toxins by examining tissue samples of seabirds.
(C) The government cannot gain an accurate count of the number of seabirds killed by net fishing unless the fishing industry cooperates.
(D) If the government knew that fish caught by the fishing industry were contaminated by toxins, the government would restrict net fishing.
(E) If net fishing were restricted by the government, then the fishing industry would become more inclined to reveal the number of seabirds killed by net fishing.

Which one of the following, if true, most strongly indicates that the government program would not by itself provide an accurate count of the seabirds killed by net fishing?
(A) The seabirds killed by net fishing might be contaminated with several different toxins even if the birds eat only one kind of fish.
(B) The fishing industry could learn whether the fish it catches are contaminated with toxins if only a few of the seabirds killed by the nets were examined.
(C) The government could gain valuable information about the source of toxins by examining tissue samples of the seabirds caught in the nets.
(D) The fish caught in a particular net might be contaminated with the same toxins as those in the seabirds caught in that net.
(E) The government would be willing to certify that the fish caught by the industry are not contaminated with toxins if tests done on the seabirds showed no contamination.

I am not convinced with 2nd answer as B, because it says which answer choice shows that the govt plawill not work on its own (examining tissue samples from dead birds), the govt plan will not work only if the tozins in the bords it examines are of various types and it needs the fishing industry to turn in a few birds to confirm the match.
_________________

Kudos [?]: 107 [0], given: 157

Current Student
Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 226

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 26

Schools: Sloan R1, McCombs R1, Ross R1 (w/int), Haas R2, Kellogg R2
WE 1: Product Engineering/Manufacturing

### Show Tags

20 Jul 2010, 20:31
BlueRobin wrote:
I am not convinced with 2nd answer as B, because it says which answer choice shows that the govt plawill not work on its own (examining tissue samples from dead birds), the govt plan will not work only if the tozins in the bords it examines are of various types and it needs the fishing industry to turn in a few birds to confirm the match.

The goal of the government is to get an accurate count of seabirds killed by seanets. The author assumes that fishermen will turn in enough seabirds killed by seanets to get an accurate count. If the fishermen only need into turn in a small number of seabirds to learn about toxins, they have no incentive to provide the government with more carcasses then they need to get there information regarding toxins.

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 26

Director
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Affiliations: University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 957

Kudos [?]: 902 [0], given: 36

Location: Singapore
Concentration: General Management, Finance
Schools: Chicago Booth - Class of 2015

### Show Tags

20 Jul 2010, 21:14
I agree. Accuracy Vs Inaccuracy. The sample that fishermen have a greater accuracy to verify than the samples Govt is planning. They definitely need the help of fishermen and the govt program will not work on its own.

Kudos [?]: 902 [0], given: 36

Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
Posts: 305

Kudos [?]: 685 [0], given: 20

### Show Tags

21 Jul 2010, 00:46
Nice ques.

My ans were C and A.
But the explanations from @nusmavrik are excellent. I admit my folly ..
Need to be more focussed ..

Kudos [?]: 685 [0], given: 20

Intern
Joined: 28 Aug 2009
Posts: 4

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

21 Jul 2010, 05:01

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 1

Manager
Joined: 08 Jan 2010
Posts: 178

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 13

### Show Tags

31 Jul 2010, 14:23
Mine B and B .........OA please

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 13

Senior Manager
Affiliations: Volunteer Operation Smile India, Creative Head of College IEEE branch (2009-10), Chief Editor College Magazine (2009), Finance Head College Magazine (2008)
Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Posts: 461

Kudos [?]: 174 [0], given: 24

Location: India
WE2: Entrepreneur (E-commerce - The Laptop Skin Vault)
Concentration: Marketing, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
WE: Marketing (Other)

### Show Tags

12 Sep 2010, 04:31
C & B for me too...nice explaination
_________________

Kidchaos

http://www.laptopskinvault.com

Follow The Laptop Skin Vault on:

Consider Kudos if you think the Post is good
Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot. Nothing is going to change. It's not. - Dr. Seuss

Kudos [?]: 174 [0], given: 24

Manager
Joined: 22 Jul 2010
Posts: 137

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 13

### Show Tags

12 Sep 2010, 06:36
I went for D and A

fewwww i admit my mistake ..........
_________________

Whatever you do, Do it SINCERELY!!!

GOD help those who help themselves....

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 13

Manager
Joined: 02 Apr 2010
Posts: 93

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

12 Sep 2010, 22:29
C and B. Arr... I was trapped by A. Folly folly.

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 1

Manager
Joined: 08 Feb 2010
Posts: 129

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

14 Sep 2010, 06:12
Me too traped but C and B seems correct

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 89

Kudos [?]: 43 [1], given: 14

Schools: Wharton..:)

### Show Tags

06 Oct 2010, 06:23
1
KUDOS
The fishing industry cannot currently be relied upon to help the government count the seabirds killed by net fishing, since an accurate count might result in restriction of net fishing. The government should therefore institute a program under which tissue samples from the dead birds are examined to determine the amount of toxins in the fish eaten by the birds. The industry would then have a reason to turn in the bird carcasses, since the industry needs to know whether the fish it catches are contaminated with toxins.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
(A) The seabirds that are killed by net fishing do not eat all of the species of fish caught by the fishing industry.
(B) The government has not in the past sought to determine whether fish were contaminated with toxins by examining tissue samples of seabirds.
(C) The government cannot gain an accurate count of the number of seabirds killed by net fishing unless the fishing industry cooperates.
(D) If the government knew that fish caught by the fishing industry were contaminated by toxins, the government would restrict net fishing.
(E) If net fishing were restricted by the government, then the fishing industry would become more inclined to reveal the number of seabirds killed by net fishing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
question says:: Fishing industry unreliable for counting of the dead seabirds so govt [u]should opt for sm new plan[/u] , which would give the industry a reason to turn the dead bird carcass..
A reason is tht if the industry knows tht the fish tht it catches Is infected it would be smwht be useful for thm..

IN short the new plan needs help from the fishing industry , no matter wht , unless fishing industry ppl turn in the dead carcasses govt plan is useless..
choices::
A) red flags:: ALL , + it's out of scope !
B)keep it on hold as of now..
C)this is the conclusion , not a support for the argument
D)If this were the case , industry has no reason to turn in the dead carcass
E) iT is smwht of a threat from the govt...not at all relevant..
coming back to B
if in the past this new technique was not used then thr is sm incentive for the industry people to turn in the carcass tht would help thm to know if the fish they catch indeed is exposed to toxic substances( if at all )
so IMO B!
_________________

" What [i] do is not beyond anybody else's competence"- warren buffett
My Gmat experience -http://gmatclub.com/forum/gmat-710-q-47-v-41-tips-for-non-natives-107086.html

Kudos [?]: 43 [1], given: 14

Manager
Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 168

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 15

WE 1: 4 years Software Product Development
WE 2: 3 years ERP Consulting

### Show Tags

06 Oct 2010, 23:19
C & B for me. Though I took 2 mins on each question
_________________

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 15

Manager
Joined: 15 Apr 2010
Posts: 163

Kudos [?]: 88 [1], given: 3

### Show Tags

07 Oct 2010, 11:51
1
KUDOS
The main conclusion of the argument is that “The government should therefore institute a program under which tissue samples from the dead birds are examined to determine the amount of toxins in the fish eaten by the birds.”

In strengthen the argument ques, generally we are required to strengthen the conclusion but in rare cases we may be required to strengthen other parts of the argument as well.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
(A) The seabirds that are killed by net fishing do not eat all of the species of fish caught by the fishing industry. ==> Not relevant
(B) The government has not in the past sought to determine whether fish were contaminated with toxins by examining tissue samples of seabirds. ==> This does not strengthen the argument because if the govt has not done sthg in the past doesn’t mean that it should do it in the present.
(C) The government cannot gain an accurate count of the number of seabirds killed by net fishing unless the fishing industry cooperates. ==> Correct. This clearly strengthens the conclusion. The govt should resort to instituting a program because it is impossible to gain accurate count of dead seabirds unless fishing industry cooperates and from the premises we know that fishing industry would not co-operate fully.
(D) If the government knew that fish caught by the fishing industry were contaminated by toxins, the government would restrict net fishing. ==> Not relevant
(E) If net fishing were restricted by the government, then the fishing industry would become more inclined to reveal the number of seabirds killed by net fishing. ==> Not relevant

Kudos [?]: 88 [1], given: 3

Manager
Joined: 15 Apr 2010
Posts: 163

Kudos [?]: 88 [0], given: 3

### Show Tags

07 Oct 2010, 12:18

Kudos [?]: 88 [0], given: 3

Re: The fishing industry   [#permalink] 07 Oct 2010, 12:18
Display posts from previous: Sort by