Dear zoezhuyan,

Happy new year, my friend! Happy Year of the Rooster! I'm happy to respond.

Unfortunately, your question is still hard to follow. One problem concerns the confusing use of letters. Normally, I would think that (A), (B), and (C) would refer to the answer choices in this question. Instead, I think what you have done is create an imaginary dialogue and given the characters these letter names. Now, an imaginary dialogue to illustrate a point is fine, but it's very confusing to use the same letters for characters as for answer choices. A dialogue among characters P, Q, and R would be perfectly fine.

Even assuming that the letter refer to characters in the dialogue, and not answer choices, what you are asking is still unusual. If I understand your question correct, I would say that the the distinction you are drawing doesn't matter.

Suppose I execute Plan J, with the intention that, say, more money goes to School Q. Then, suppose I leave the country or somehow never hear about School Q again. Now, zoezhuyan comes along and enacts Plan K, which happens to support Plan J. As a result of zoezhuyan enacting Plan K, it happens that School Q gets all the money it needs. In this scenario, even though I am totally out of the picture, my intended effect was still realized. It doesn't matter at all whether I am present or aware for my intended effect to be realized. Also, it doesn't matter whether zoezhuyan had the same intention. Maybe zoezhuyan didn't know a single thing about School Q or Plan J and simply was enacting Plan K for some other unrelated reason altogether. Even if it were "by accident" that School Q wound up getting money, an unintended consequence that was off everyone's radar, even then, it is still true that my intended effect was realized.
I don't know whether this answers your question. Let me know.

Mike

When we select option A.)
"The pheromones that would most attract the food species sought by commercial fishers indicate the presence of a dangerous threat to most of the endangered marine species."

Are we not assuming that the endangered marine species react to the pheromones. The passage clearly specifies that the pheromones are for the commercially sought after fish, however the passage does not specify anything how the endangered marine species react to these pheromones.

Dear zoezhuyan,

How are you, my friend? It seems you have gone to tremendous lengths to construct an analysis, and unfortunately, it's all a little off the mark.

You see, often in a GMAT CR question, it's hard to make a simple "recipe" for what you can and can't ignore.

Think about what we know and don't know by the end of the prompt.
What we know:
1) We know the environmental advocates want to save fish not targeted by commercial fishing.
2) Toward that end, they have come up with a new kind of net, that appears to be designed specifically for what the commercial fishermen want to catch.
3)The environmental advocates want a solution that saves the fish but doesn't interrupt the business of fishing.
What we don't know:
1) Do these nets really work as they are intended?
2) Do we know that these new nets are going to get used?

Those are concerns that the prompt leaves open. Anything that strengthens one of these would be helpful?

The problem with (C) is not the topic itself, but that it works in the wrong direction. If the new nets were significantly cheaper than the previous nets, we would have no doubt that the fishermen would use them. This would be a strengthener, though not the strongest strengthener. Instead, (C) goes in the opposite direction: the new nets are slightly more expensive than the old nets: that's no a huge impediment, but by itself it doesn't suggest a run on the market. By itself, it doesn't suggest the widespread use of the nets.

That's the most compelling reason to reject (C).

Does all this make sense?
Mike

When we select option A.)
"The pheromones that would most attract the food species sought by commercial fishers indicate the presence of a dangerous threat to most of the endangered marine species."

Are we not assuming that the endangered marine species react to the pheromones. The passage clearly specifies that the pheromones are for the commercially sought after fish, however the passage does not specify anything how the endangered marine species react to these pheromones.

Bottom trawling is a type of deep-sea fishing that involves dragging a large net along the bottom of the ocean, and it results in catching and killing many unintended species, some of which are endangered. Environmental advocates, concerned for these endangered marine species, have recommended that commercial fishers use a new set of nets, each designed specifically for the size and shape and pheromones (chemical attractors) of an individual marine species targeted by the commercial fishers. Environmentalists hope use of these new nets will protect the endangered marine species without interrupting commercial deep-sea fishing.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the claim that use of the new nets will have the intended effects?

(A) The pheromones that would most attract the food species sought by commercial fishers indicate the presence of a dangerous threat to most of the endangered marine species.

(B) Some endangered marine species are particularly large, as large any species targeted by commercial deep-sea fishing.

(C) Most of the newly design nets are not significantly more expensive than a typical bottom trawling system.

(D) Catching unintended, endangered species adds nothing to the profits of a commercial deep-sea fishing company.

(E) Freshwater fishers often increase the odds of catching a desired fish, and avoid catching unintended species, by the specific design of the fishing hook.

Hi experts,

Could you please clarify why option A is the answer? It talks about pheromones, not about the nets. For all we know pheromones could have been part of the previously used nets as well.

For all we know pheromones could have been part of the previously used nets as well.