It is the lack of a training program for fishermen

Question

It is the lack of a training program for fishermen, and not the change in oceanic oxygen levels, that has caused the decline in fish harvests off the coast of country X over the last five years. Neighboring country Y has experienced the same changes in oceanic oxygen conditions but has actually seen an increase in the number of fish caught off its coast in each of the last five years.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?

(A) Country X has many training programs for hunters of big game, but it has not seen an increase in the number of animals killed in hunts over the last five years.

(B) Country X does not have any modern shipping facilities or airports, but country Y has invested in such infrastructure over the last five years.

(C) Country Y has been widely known for its quality fishermen for centuries.

(D) The types of fish that have been caught off the coast of country X are different from the types that have always been caught off the coast of country Y.

(E) The parliament of country X has consistently voted down legislation that would have provided funds for training programs for fishermen.

AndrewN · Accepted Answer

Although I agree that  VeritasKarishma  is a fine addition to GMAT Club, on behalf of  other tutors out there , I would like to say that some of us are busier responding to tags than others, not to mention actually tutoring. (I typically get a handful of tags per day, and I am a lesser star on the site. I can only imagine what rockstar tutors such as  GMATNinja  or  VeritasKarishma  must see in terms of requests on a daily basis.) You have to keep in mind, too, that sometimes tutors do not respond because they may feel as though the question has already been answered in the thread, or they may see that a personal request, a tag, has come through and so feel less compelled to step in. I am not saying that that is the case here, but it may well be in this or in other situations.

Please be respectful of the community, tutors and non-tutors alike. We are all working together to make GMAT Club a phenomenal resource.

- Andrew

dtello · Answer

Hi, why is D and not B? I think both are giving other reasons for the increase in the number of fish caught.
Thank you!

kalaposz97 · Answer

Hi! Well, both might give other reasons for the increase in the number of fish caught, but that is not the task if you think about the conclusion of the argument. If you separate the conclusion it says: " It is the lack of a training program for fishermen, and not the change in oceanic oxygen levels, that has caused the decline in fish harvests off the coast of country X over the last five years." Also, the argument goes on to support the "not the change in oceanic oxygen levels" part, by explaining that the oxygen levels off the coast of country Y have declined as well, but fish harvests could actually rise. So there you have this paradox and focus is really on resolving, how oxygenic levels can affect one country (X) but have no impact on the other (Y). B gives an alternative reason for the rise in fishers' prey, but it cannot explain how the oxygen levels affect X but not Y. (Also if you just think about the argument, I would want to see something about either the part about the training program or the change in oceanic oxygen levels - that is the task in my opinion and not giving alternate reasons for the rise in Y's fish harvest.) If you consider D, different kinds of fish can actually resolve the issue. Simply, the fish off the coast of country Y might be more "resistant" to lower oxygen levels than the fish harvested on country X's waters, and therefore the fish stocks of country X are lower, because some of its fish have already died or wandered away. Or at least, this was my thinking, but to be honest I am not an expert at all.

MPRS22 · Answer

why not C?

egmat   VeritasKarishma

VeritasKarishma  is kicking some ass compared to other tutors out there! the only one that responds

innochandan · Answer

Concusion- It is the lack of a training program for fishermen, and not the change in oceanic oxygen levels, that has caused the decline in fish harvests off the coast of country X over the last five years.
POE-
 A- training for hunters did not increase number of animal hunts. This does not mean that training for fisherman cannpt increase number of fish harvest. Incorrect
B- Its actually may strenthen the conclusion- incorrect
C- it is not necessary that today's fishermen are equally capable. Incorrect
D- it may be possible that fish in country y may be more resistant to low oxygen than in country X- lets keep it
E- it actually may strenthen the conclusion.
Correct answer- D

Posted from my mobile device

It is the lack of a training program for fishermen

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

It is the lack of a training program for fishermen

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards