Russia's aggressive fishing in the prime fishing grounds of the

Question

Russia's aggressive fishing in the prime fishing grounds of the Northern Pacific has led to a sharp decline in the populations of many fish and a general increase in the retail price of fish. This same pattern has occurred with far too many of our scarce vital natural resources, resulting in high prices for many products. It is likely then, that fish prices will continue to rise in the near future.

In making the argument above, the author relies on all of the following assumptions EXCEPT:

(A) The scarcity of fish is a determining factor in its price

(B) The decline in the number of fish available will result in higher prices for fish in stores.

(C) There will not be any substantial decrease in other costs involved in the fishing process that could keep the price of fish from increasing.

(D) Fish populations will not recover in the near future.

(E) Fishing practices can substantially influence the demand for fish.

Abhishek009 · Answer

Russ agg. fishing = ↓ pop of fish & ↑ Ret fish price. (Same with Vital Nat resources)
↑ Ret fish price in FUTURE.

(A) Must be true, a demand and supply crisis is being stated.

(B) Absolutely true, higher demand and less supply has resulted in higher price.

(C) If other fishing costs / Production costs decreases then final retail price will be less, this option state there will not be any such possibility, hence correct.

(D) If there is abundence of fish, then price will drop, as supply will match demand, this is not happening in this case , hence correct.

(E) This is just a statement, which is unfouunded and doent have any relevance, how can production process have any effect on demand for that product, this can not be true,hence, this has to be the correct Answer.

Preeti12345 · Answer

Why not B .is not the option already mentioned in the passage.cab anybody please explain

Posted from my mobile device

HariBhattarai · Answer

B is not the right option because- The passage already says that there is a  "Decline in population  of fish and that is causing the  prices to ris e(general law of demand right) most importantly the Question is asking which is not the assumption among these five options- And the option B- The decline in the number of fish available will result in higher prices for fish in stores. This is an assumption as stated above.  So go for another option that is not stated in the passage or not an underlying assumption

suntprovident · Answer

Can someone explain how option (C) is an assumption as against option (E).

My thought was that (E) is an indirectly stated assumption as increased fishing (supply) was absorbed by the market, if not the prices would have corrected

There will not be any substantial decrease in other costs involved in the fishing process that could keep the price of fish from increasing.

guddo · Answer

The author argues that because Russian overfishing has caused fish populations to decline and prices to rise, and because this pattern of overexploitation leading to high prices has happened with other resources, fish prices will likely keep rising.

(A) The argument's logic depends on scarcity driving price. Assumed.

(B) The author explicitly states the decline has increased retail prices and expects this to continue. Assumed.

(C) The argument assumes no offsetting cost decreases (e.g., cheaper fuel, labor) that would prevent price increases. Assumed.

(D) If populations recovered quickly, prices might not rise. The prediction of rising prices assumes no near-term recovery. Assumed.

(E) The argument is about supply (fishing practices affect fish populations), not demand. Whether fishing affects demand for fish is irrelevant to the price-increase prediction. The author only assumes supply-side effects.  NOT assumed.

The author's reasoning centers on supply scarcity raising prices. Assumption E shifts to demand, which is not part of the argument's logic. Therefore,  the answer is E.

guddo · Answer

Your thought about E is incorrect because the argument does not depend on what influences  demand . The argument's chain is: overfishing --> lower supply --> higher prices. Whether fishing practices affect  demand  is irrelevant to that logic.

So, I think  option C is a necessary assumption  because if other fishing costs (like fuel or labor) dropped substantially, the retail price might not rise even with lower supply. The author's prediction that prices will rise assumes no such cost decrease will offset the supply pressure.

E, on the other hand,  is not assumed  because the argument never mentions demand. It only discusses supply-side effects (overfishing reducing populations). What drives demand is outside the scope.

Russia's aggressive fishing in the prime fishing grounds of the

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

Russia's aggressive fishing in the prime fishing grounds of the

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