Jeanette: We must stop the overfishing of the Guantabe

Question

Jeanette: We must stop the overfishing of the Guantabe fishing beds off the coast of Ecuador. Unless the overfishing is curtailed, several local species of fish may become extinct.
Sandra: The people who live on the Ecuadoran coast depend on the fish for their survival. To deprive them of this source of food might mean death by starvation.

Which of the following, if true, is the best objection that could be made from Jeanette’s point of view to counter Sandra’s point?

1] There are species of fish in other locations that are quite similar to the fish found in the Guantabe fishing beds. 
 
 2] Allowing particular species to breed unchecked can upset the delicate balance of the ecosystem in the entire area. 
 
3] A steady diet of fish can raise the level of PCBs (known carcinogens) in the body of a human to dangerous levels. 
 
4] In a study, it was found that the coastal Ecuadorians would willingly eat other foods when they were available. 
 
5] The vast majority of the fish now taken from the Guantabe fishing beds is taken by commercial fishing ships that sell their catch in other countries.

chix475ntu · Answer

Sandra's point is that the people only eat the fish found there and there is no other way the people will survive. To counter this, if we can say that the people do eat something else if necesary will weaken sandras claim.

D.

D.

rathoreaditya81 · Answer

Well, IMO the answer is E. 
E attacks the Sanda's basic premise that the fishing is done by local and if disallowed, it will deprive people their staple food.

nverma · Answer

E for me.

sasen · Answer

Argument talks about NOT CURTAILING FISHING stating that FISH IS SOURCE OF FOOD WHICH ,IF DENIED,MIGHT LEAD TO HUMAN STARVATION

However,if it can be shown that FISHING IS BEING DONE MUCH BEYOND THOSE TO MAINTAIN HHUMAN SURVIVAL LEVELS,it can be used to justfy the curtailing of 
FISHING....
only E could be used to counter that SINCE WE ARE ALREADY OVERFISHING..SO MUCH BEYOND THE SURVIVAL LIMITS OVER TO COMMERCIAL EXPORTS...we should
curtail fishing.

onedayill · Answer

+ 1 E

Clearly attacks the Sanda's basic premise

OA please?

Indien · Answer

yeah ...E
The counterargument is based on local consumption. E negates that view.

bibha · Answer

I would like to know what is wrong with D?

seekmba · Answer

E for me.

KissGMAT · Answer

Not D because D negates the premise given by Sandra " The people who live on the Ecuadoran coast depend on the fish for their survival. "

Wheras E restects Sandra claim, concidering what she is saying is true and at the same time bring up another claim ( export of fish) to proce her point.

So E

tryingharder · Answer

E my pick

varunmaheshwari · Answer

IMO answer is E

q10nik · Answer

+1 for E.

OA please!

andysimple · Answer

This question's reasoning is quite simple. 
Jan: we should stop fishing
san: but it's the most important food.
So for Jan to counter San viewpoint, she must indicate that the majority of the caught fish is not for food => Choice E

nov79 · Answer

+1 E. 
Sandra - No fishing = starvation.
To make Sandra's point wrong we need to prove that the people in Ecuador could survive without fishing. Only E does that.

Jeanette: We must stop the overfishing of the Guantabe

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