In parts of the Caribbean, the manatee, an endangered marine mammal, has long been hunted for its meat. Having noted...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
In parts of the Caribbean, the manatee, an endangered marine mammal, has long been hunted for its meat. Having noted the manatee hunters' expert knowledge of manatees' habits, local conservationists are encouraging the hunters to stop hunting and instead to take tourists on boat rides to see manatees. Tourist interest is high, so the plan has promise of achieving the twin goals of giving the former hunters a good income and helping ensure the manatees' survival.
Which of the following, if true, raises the most serious doubt about the plan's chance of success?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| In parts of the Caribbean, the manatee, an endangered marine mammal, has long been hunted for its meat. |
|
| Having noted the manatee hunters' expert knowledge of manatees' habits, local conservationists are encouraging the hunters to stop hunting and instead to take tourists on boat rides to see manatees. |
|
| Tourist interest is high, so the plan has promise of achieving the twin goals of giving the former hunters a good income and helping ensure the manatees' survival. |
|
Argument Flow:
The argument starts with a problem (manatee hunting threatens endangered species), then presents a solution (convert hunters to tour guides), and finally explains why this solution looks promising (high tourist interest can achieve dual benefits).
Main Conclusion:
The plan to convert manatee hunters into tour guides has good chances of success because it can provide income for hunters while protecting manatees.
Logical Structure:
The argument uses a cause-and-effect structure: since tourist interest is high and hunters have expertise, we can expect the plan to succeed in meeting both economic and conservation goals. The logic relies on the assumption that high demand plus expert knowledge equals successful outcomes.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Weaken - We need to find information that would make us doubt whether the plan can actually achieve its twin goals of providing good income for former hunters and helping manatees survive
Precision of Claims
The plan's success depends on specific activities (hunters becoming tour guides), quality outcomes (good income for hunters), and conservation results (manatee survival). We need to target what could go wrong with these specific elements
Strategy
Look for ways the plan could backfire or fail to achieve either goal. Focus on potential negative consequences of boat tourism on manatees, economic viability issues for hunters, or practical problems with the career transition. The key is finding scenarios where high tourist interest doesn't translate to plan success
This choice suggests some tourists aren't interested in manatees and wouldn't pay for boat rides. However, the passage already states that 'tourist interest is high,' which means there's sufficient demand even if some tourists aren't interested. A subset of uninterested tourists doesn't negate the overall high interest level, so this doesn't seriously threaten the plan's success.
This talks about future hunting being possible once manatee populations recover. But this actually supports the plan rather than weakening it - if the plan succeeds in helping manatees recover to sustainable levels, that's a good outcome. The possibility of future sustainable hunting doesn't raise doubt about the current plan's chances.
This mentions that local people could replace manatee meat with other seafood. This is actually helpful for conservation goals since it suggests the hunting pressure could be reduced more easily. If people can easily substitute other foods, this supports rather than undermines the plan's conservation objective.
This states there wouldn't be enough former hunters to guide all interested tourists. This is actually a good problem to have - it suggests demand exceeds supply, which means the hunters who do become guides would be very successful economically. This doesn't raise doubt about the plan's success; it suggests the opposite.
This reveals a critical flaw in the plan. To maintain their current income level, former hunters would need to use larger boats and make many more trips into the manatees' fragile habitat. This creates a direct conflict between the plan's twin goals - achieving good income for hunters would require activities that harm manatee survival more than the current hunting does. This makes the plan self-defeating and raises serious doubt about whether it can actually achieve both objectives simultaneously.