In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from the territorial waters of the country of Belukia. Soon after,...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Assumption

HARD

...

Notes

Post a Query

In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from the territorial waters of the country of Belukia. Soon after, the annual tonnage of lobster legally harvested in Belukian waters began declining; in 1996, despite there being no reduction in the level of legal lobster fishing activity, the local catch was 9,000 tons below pre-1992 levels. It is therefore highly likely that the outlaw fishing boats harvested about 9,000 tons of lobster illegally that year.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

The illegal lobster harvesting was not so extensive that the population of catchable lobsters in Belukia's territorial waters had sharply declined by 1996.

The average annual lobster catch, in tons, of an outlaw fishing boat has increased steadily since 1992.

Outlaw fishing boats do not, as a group, harvest more lobsters than do licensed lobster-fishing boats.

The annual legal lobster harvest in Belukia in 1996 was not significantly less than 9,000 tons.

A significant proportion of Belukia's operators of licensed lobster-fishing boats went out of business between 1992 and 1996.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from the territorial waters of the country of Belukia.	What it says: Illegal fishing started in Belukia's waters in 1992 What it does: Sets up the timeline and introduces the problem that caused everything else What it is: Author's factual claim Visualization: Timeline: 1992 → Outlaw boats start illegal lobster fishing in Belukian waters
Soon after, the annual tonnage of lobster legally harvested in Belukian waters began declining	What it says: Legal lobster catches started dropping after the illegal fishing began What it does: Shows the effect that followed the illegal fishing - connects the problem to its consequence What it is: Author's factual claim Visualization: 1992: Illegal fishing starts → Soon after: Legal catches begin declining
in 1996, despite there being no reduction in the level of legal lobster fishing activity, the local catch was 9,000 tons below pre-1992 levels	What it says: By 1996, legal catches were 9,000 tons lower than before 1992, even though legal fishing activity stayed the same What it does: Gives us concrete numbers and eliminates other explanations for the decline What it is: Author's factual claim Visualization: Pre-1992 legal catch: Let's say 20,000 tons 1996 legal catch: 11,000 tons (9,000 tons less) Legal fishing activity level: Same as before
It is therefore highly likely that the outlaw fishing boats harvested about 9,000 tons of lobster illegally that year.	What it says: The author concludes that illegal boats probably caught about 9,000 tons in 1996 What it does: Draws the main conclusion by connecting the missing 9,000 tons to illegal fishing What it is: Author's conclusion Visualization: Missing from legal catch: 9,000 tons Author's explanation: Outlaw boats took ≈ 9,000 tons illegally

Argument Flow:

The argument starts by establishing when illegal fishing began (1992), then shows that legal catches declined after this point. It provides specific data from 1996 showing a 9,000 ton shortfall while ruling out reduced legal fishing activity as the cause. Finally, it concludes that the illegal boats must have taken the missing 9,000 tons.

Main Conclusion:

The outlaw fishing boats likely harvested about 9,000 tons of lobster illegally in 1996.

Logical Structure:

The argument uses a process of elimination logic: Legal catches dropped by 9,000 tons, legal fishing activity didn't decrease, so the missing lobsters must have been taken by the illegal boats that started operating in 1992.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Assumption - We need to find what the author must believe to be true for their conclusion to hold. The author concludes that outlaw boats harvested about 9,000 tons because legal catches dropped by exactly that amount.

Precision of Claims

The argument involves precise quantities (9,000 tons missing from legal catch = 9,000 tons taken illegally), activity levels (legal fishing activity remained constant), and timing (1992 start of illegal fishing, 1996 measurements).

Strategy

For assumption questions, we need to identify what could break the author's logic while respecting the given facts. The author assumes the 9,000 ton decline in legal catches directly equals what outlaw boats took. We should look for gaps in this reasoning - what else could explain the missing lobsters or affect this calculation?

Answer Choices Explained

The illegal lobster harvesting was not so extensive that the population of catchable lobsters in Belukia's territorial waters had sharply declined by 1996.

This states that illegal harvesting wasn't so extensive that the lobster population sharply declined by 1996. This is exactly what the argument must assume. If illegal fishing had depleted the overall lobster population, then the 9,000 ton drop in legal catches wouldn't represent lobsters stolen by illegal boats - it would represent lobsters that no longer exist. The author's conclusion that illegal boats took about 9,000 tons only makes sense if there were still 9,000 tons of lobsters available to be taken. This is the correct assumption.

The average annual lobster catch, in tons, of an outlaw fishing boat has increased steadily since 1992.

This claims the average catch per outlaw boat increased steadily since 1992. The argument doesn't need this to be true at all. Whether individual boats became more or less efficient doesn't matter - we only care about the total amount taken by all illegal boats combined in 1996. The conclusion works whether this came from many boats catching a little each or fewer boats catching more each. This is not required.

Outlaw fishing boats do not, as a group, harvest more lobsters than do licensed lobster-fishing boats.

This says outlaw boats don't harvest more than licensed boats as a group. This is completely irrelevant to the argument. The author isn't comparing the total capacity or output of legal vs illegal boats - just trying to account for the specific 9,000 ton shortfall in legal catches. Whether illegal boats are more or less productive overall doesn't affect this calculation. This is not required.

The annual legal lobster harvest in Belukia in 1996 was not significantly less than 9,000 tons.

This states that legal harvest in 1996 wasn't significantly less than 9,000 tons. This doesn't need to be assumed. The argument is about the difference between pre-1992 and 1996 levels, not about the absolute size of the 1996 catch. Even if the legal catch in 1996 was only 1,000 tons total, the logic would still work as long as it was 9,000 tons less than before. This is not required.

A significant proportion of Belukia's operators of licensed lobster-fishing boats went out of business between 1992 and 1996.

This suggests many licensed operators went out of business between 1992 and 1996. Actually, this would weaken the argument rather than support it. If legal fishing operations decreased, that could explain the decline in legal catches without needing to blame illegal boats. The argument specifically states that legal fishing activity levels remained constant, which rules this out. This is not required.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...