Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game Authority would have the public believe that increases in the number of marine fish caught demonstrate that this resource is no longer endangered. This is a specious argument, as unsound as it would be to assert that the ever-increasing rate at which rain forests are being cut down demonstrates a lack of danger to that resource. The real cause of the increased fish-catch is a greater efficiency in using technologies that deplete resources.
The environmentalist’s statements, if true, best support which of the following as a conclusion?
(A) The use of technology is the reason for the increasing encroachment of people on nature.
(B) It is possible to determine how many fish are in the sea in some way other than by catching fish.
(C) The proportion of marine fish that are caught is as high as the proportion of rain forest trees that are cut down each year.
(D) Modern technologies waste resources by catching inedible fish.
(E) Marinefish continue to be an endangered resource.
Solution
Passage Analysis
| Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game Authority would have the public believe that increases in the number of marine fish caught demonstrate that this resource is no longer endangered. | Key-points from this statement
(1) Environmentalist–author of the argument (2) Environmentalist comments on a claim made by a certain authority (3) Claim by the authority- increase in the number of marine fish caught= marine fish not endangered
|
| This is a specious argument, as unsound as it would be to assert that the ever-increasing rate at which rain forests are being cut down demonstrates a lack of danger to that resource. | Key-points from this statement:
(1) Environmentalist calls the above claim false (conclusion of the argument) (2) Gives an analogy to prove his/her point (3) Analogy- just as it would be absurd to deduce that the rain forest is not in danger because the number of trees being cut show how abundant it is, it would be illogical to say that the marine fish are not in danger since there have been increases in its catch. |
| The real cause of the increased fish-catch is a greater efficiency in using technologies that deplete resources. | Key-points from this statement
(1) Author cites increased efficiency in the use of technology as the real cause for the increase in the fish-catch (2) Blames technology for depleting resources in this situation |
Loved the solution? Take a free trial to get unlimited access to concept files, live sessions, and practice questions. For any strategic advice for GMAT or MBA Admissions, write to us at acethegmat@e-gmat.com. We are the most reviewed GMAT prep company on GMATClub with more than 2400+ reviews
Pre-thinking
In this question, we need to find the conclusion of the passage. The conclusion has to come on the basis of the given statements. In order to arrive at a possible conclusion choice, let’s examine the argument carefully.
From our passage analysis, we know that the environmentalist thinks that the claim made by a certain authority is false. Now the authority’s claim is that:
increase in the number of marine fish caught = marine fish not endangered anymore
The author then holds the use of certain technologies responsible for having caused these increases in the fish catch and accuses it for depleting resources in this case. Since the author makes this accusation against the use of certain technologies, we can infer that the author thinks that:
(1) The use of some technologies sometimes interferes with safeguarding natural resources.
Also, since the author says that the increase in the catch of the marinefish does not mean that the marinefish is not endangered, the author thinks that the marinefish continues to be exploited and hence its status has not improved. If it was endangered before, it definitely is still endangered. . Therefore, we can conclude that:
(2) The status of the marine fish is still endangered.
With these pre-thought answers, let’s evaluate the answer choices.
Analysis of Option Statements
| (A)The use of technology is the reason for the increasing encroachment of people on nature. | This option is incorrect. It over-generalizes the crux of environmentalist’s argument. The environmentalist does say that the increases in the fish-catch are due to the use of such technologies that deplete resources; however, on the basis of this statement, one cannot infer that this is always the case with the use of technology.In our pre-thinking we considered an option that could be mistaken for being on similar lines. BUT our option was limited to the scope of this argument. We said that :
The use of some technologies sometimes interferes with safeguarding natural resources. This is different from saying that the use of technologies is always responsible for unjustifiably exploiting nature. Hence, as is, this answer choice is not the correct answer. |
| (B) It is possible to determine how many fish are in the sea in some way other than by catching fish. | This option is incorrect. It is out of scope. The environmentalist never talks of using other sources for measuring the number of fish in the sea. Infact, he/she never even indicates in that direction. The discussion of the argument is limited to how determining the number/abundance of fish from its catches is illogical. |
| (C) The proportion of marine fish that are caught is as high as the proportion of rain forest trees that are cut down each year. | This option is incorrect. It is an iSWAT- it takes certain words from the argument but completely changes the context in which they have been used.The author/environmentalist gives the analogy of the rain forest to establish a point. His/her point is that just as it would be absurd to deduce that the rain forest is not in danger because the number of trees being cut show how abundant it is, it would be illogical to say that the marine fish are not in danger since there have been increases in its catch.The environmentalist by no means has compared–explicitly or implicitly, the respective proportions of cut tree with the caught fish. |
| (D) Modern technologies waste resources by catching inedible fish. | This option is incorrect. It is out of scope. The author of the argument never touches on the edibility/usability aspect of the fish. |
| (E) Marinefish continue to be an endangered resource. | This is the correct option. It is exactly on the lines of our pre-thought answer.In the argument, the environmentalist disputes the claim that the increases in the number of marine- fish caught prove that these fish are not endangered anymore. In fact, the author thinks that the increases in the fish-catch represent a depletion of the resource.Therefore, one can safely conclude that the marinefish continue to be endangered. |
Loved the solution? Take a free trial to get unlimited access to concept files, live sessions, and practice questions. For any strategic advice for GMAT or MBA Admissions, write to us at acethegmat@e-gmat.com. We are the most reviewed GMAT prep company on GMATClub with more than 2400+ reviews
