Environmentalist : The commissioner of the Fish and Game Authority would have the public believe that increases in the number...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
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?
Passage Visualization
| Passage Statement | Visualization and Linkage |
|---|---|
| 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. |
Commissioner's Argument: More fish caught = Less danger to fish population Concrete Example:
|
| 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. |
Environmentalist's Counterpoint: Flawed reasoning exposed through analogy Rain Forest Parallel:
|
| The real cause of the increased fish-catch is a greater efficiency in using technologies that deplete resources. |
True Explanation: Technology driving higher extraction rates Technology Impact Example:
|
| Overall Implication |
The Extraction Paradox: Improved technology creates illusion of resource abundance while actually accelerating depletion Key Pattern: Higher catch numbers may indicate greater danger to fish populations, not less danger as the commissioner claims |
Valid Inferences
Inference: The commissioner's reasoning leads to a conclusion opposite to what the evidence actually supports regarding marine fish endangerment.
Supporting Logic: Since the increased fish catch results from more efficient resource-depleting technologies rather than healthier fish populations, and since this mirrors the flawed logic of assuming increased deforestation indicates forest safety, the higher catch numbers actually suggest greater threat to marine fish resources rather than reduced endangerment. The commissioner mistakes technological efficiency gains for resource abundance.
Clarification Note: The passage supports that increased catch numbers can coexist with (and potentially indicate) increased danger to fish populations, but does not definitively establish the current endangerment status of marine fish.