Conclusion: [To allow commercial fishing stocks to recover,] the government is considering introducing annual quotas on the number of fish that each fishing boat can catch.
Which of the following, if true, raises the most serious doubts about whether the government's proposed plan would succeed?
A) Some commercial fishing boats in Cecropia are large enough to catch their entire annual quota in only a few months of fishing.
The timeframe in which these fishing boats would be able to catch the fish is irrelevant. These fishing boats would just catch them quicker and leave more quickly, allowing the fish to not be overfished (b/c of the gov’ts quotas.
B) The quotas would have to be reduced if more boats began fishing in Cecropia's coastal waters.
This doesn’t raise a DOUBT. This removes a doubt. More boats = even lower quota. Makes logical sense to be in line with the argument.
C) Because fish prices will rise if the quotas go into effect, it is unlikely that the quotas will significantly change the number of boats fishing Cecropia's coastal waters.
Doesn’t riase doubts. It almost confirms that “commercial fishing stocks [will]…recover.”
D) The procedure that inspectors use to estimate the number of fish a boat is carrying often results in a slight overcount.
The argument states that there are “high numbers” that have been caught. Thus, with the quota, the number should go down to normal levels. Even with a slight overcount, the numbers overall would have gone down, thus still not raising the most serious doubts.
E) Quotas encourage fishers to bring only the most commercially valuable fish into port and to discard less valuable fish, most of them dead or dying.
Okay this is it. The fish are still being caught at a high numbers, but instead of documenting a large number of the counts, they are caught, killed, and dumped off back into the ocean. This wouldn’t help the gov’ts goal of recovering commercial fishing stocks.