Some have argued that open-access fisheries will always be subject to

Question

Some have argued that open-access fisheries will always be subject to more exploitation than are private fisheries. The reasoning is that each fisher-man will be more likely to over fish open-access fisheries because he alone reaps the benefits, while the costs of mitigating measures to prevent the collapse of over-exploited fisheries is borne by all. Despite this, one study of 250 common-access fisheries and 103 private fisheries showed that the open-access fisheries were less exploited than the private ones.

In relation to the claim above, the answer to which of the following questions would be most valuable in assessing the significance of the study above?

In relation to the claim above, the answer to which of the following questions would be most valuable in assessing the significance of the study above?
 
(A) Were the fisherman who used the common-access fisheries as prosperous as those who used the private fisheries?

(B) Did any of the fishermen in the study have a preference for using common-access fisher-ies over private fisheries?

(C) Did any of the fishermen in the study fish only common-access fisheries, and no private fisheries?

(D) Did the private and open-access fisheries in the study have an equivalent level of marine life before any of them were used for fishing?

(E) Did any of the fishermen in the study use both common-access and private fisheries?

saukrit · Answer

Now here we have a study between   Open Fisheries  and  Private Fisheries  which concludes that the open fisheries were less exploited than the private fisheries although the expectation was just opposite. 
Now to evaluate this, which essentially means to either strengthen/weaken the conclusion what is the information that is critical to be known. Just thinking out loud, it seems that if we knew some comparison metrics between the 2 facilities which compared on some common parameter, it would have helped. Now with these thoughts in mind let's look at the answer choices

Well, what would the prosperity of fisherman tell us about the 2 facilities (Open/Private Fisheries)? Almost, nothing. Maybe you can think that if the fisherman accessing the open fisheries are better off, maybe they were less keep to exploit the facility. But this will be too much beyond the scope of argument will require a lot of hypothetical information. Thus, on the above grounds, this is not a valid answer.

Now this option may have had some effect on the conclusion and could have qualified as a Contender option, only if that modifier   any   was not there and instead we had a modifier like   Most/many  . With the presence of the modifier any which may be just 1 fisherman, we have no solid ground to expect anything from this answer. Hence we can easily get rid off this option

Not valid on the same ground as B

(D) Did the private and open-access fisheries in the study have an equivalent level of marine life before any of them were used for fishing?
 Now, this looks a very logical answer in line with what we thought in the initial phase while dissecting the argument. We were looking for some sort of valid comparison between the two types of fisheries and this one does exactly the same. This one provides us with marine life comparison between the two fisheries. Now if the open fisheries were already much richer in terms of marine life then it could very well explain why open fisheries were less exploited than the private fisheries.  Hence, this IMO is the best answer choice to evaluate the given argument 
 
(E) Did any of the fishermen in the study use both common-access and private fisheries?
 Not valid on the same ground as B

krishnabalu · Answer

Isn't it that if marine content is high in open seas more would be the exploitation?

MahmoudFawzy · Answer

According to the author, exploitation means "over-fishing".
so if private-access fisheries has low marine content, it will be easy to get exploited/over-fished even if few fishermen used it,
and if open access fisheries has high marine content, it will be difficult to get exploited/over-fished even if more fishermen used it.

so if the answer for "D" is yes, it will weaken the study because if both fisheries had high marine content, the private ones will be less likely exploited because of less number of fishermen for the same high marine content, and if both fisheries had low marine content, the open ones will more likely exploited because of more number of fishermen for same low marine content.
But if the answer is No, it will open a door for predicting that the marine content of open-access fisheries may be high enough to withstand the high usage by fishermen.

ashimadua · Answer

Please explain what exploitation would mean here

guddo · Answer

Some have argued that open-access fisheries will always be subject to more exploitation than are private fisheries. The reasoning is that each fisher-man will be more likely to over fish open-access fisheries because he alone reaps the benefits, while the costs of mitigating measures to prevent the collapse of over-exploited fisheries is borne by all. Despite this, one study of 250 common-access fisheries and 103 private fisheries showed that the open-access fisheries were less exploited than the private ones.

In relation to the claim above, the answer to which of the following questions would be most valuable in assessing the significance of the study above?

In relation to the claim above, the answer to which of the following questions would be most valuable in assessing the significance of the study above?

The argument being challenged is that open-access fisheries will always be more exploited than private fisheries. The study seems to undermine that by finding the opposite.  The key issue  is whether the two groups of fisheries were  fairly comparable to begin with . If they were not, then the study’s result may not mean much.

(A) Were the fisherman who used the common-access fisheries as prosperous as those who used the private fisheries?

This is not the most important question. The study compares fisheries, not the wealth of the fishermen.

(B) Did any of the fishermen in the study have a preference for using common-access fisheries over private fisheries?

This is also not central. Preference does not tell us whether the study’s comparison between the two kinds of fisheries is meaningful.

(C) Did any of the fishermen in the study fish only common-access fisheries, and no private fisheries?

This is not very useful. The key issue is not whether some fishermen used only one type, but whether the fisheries being compared were similar enough for the comparison to matter.

(D) Did the private and open-access fisheries in the study have an equivalent level of marine life before any of them were used for fishing?

This is the best answer. If the two types of fisheries did not start at roughly comparable levels, then the fact that one group ended up more exploited than the other may not show anything important about open-access versus private ownership. A fair starting comparison is crucial to judging the study’s significance.

(E) Did any of the fishermen in the study use both common-access and private fisheries?

This is less useful than D. Even if some fishermen used both, that would not by itself tell us whether the two sets of fisheries were comparable in a way that makes the study meaningful.

Answer: (D)

guddo · Answer

Here,  “exploitation” means how heavily the fishery is used up by fishing .

More specifically, it means  how much fishing pressure is put on it relative to what the fish population can sustain . So:

more exploited = more heavily fished, closer to depletion
 less exploited = less heavily fished, less depleted

In this question, it basically means the degree to which the fish stock is being overused.

Some have argued that open-access fisheries will always be subject to

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

Some have argued that open-access fisheries will always be subject to

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