Lockeport's commercial fishing boats use gill nets, which kill many of the netted fish, including some fish of endangered species....

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Weaken

MEDIUM

...

Notes

Post a Query

Lockeport's commercial fishing boats use gill nets, which kill many of the netted fish, including some fish of endangered species. The fishing commission has proposed requiring the use of tent nets, which do not kill fish; boat crews would then throw back fish of endangered species. Profitable commercial fishing boats in similar areas have already switched over to tent nets. The proposal can therefore be implemented without economic harm to Lockeport's commercial fishing boat operators.

Which of the following, if true, casts the most serious doubt on the argument made for the proposal?

In places where the use of tent nets has been mandated, there are typically fewer commercial fishing boats in operation than there were before tent nets came into use.

Even when used properly, gill nets require many more repairs than do tent nets.

Recreational anglers in Lockeport catch more fish of endangered species than do commercial fishing boats.

The endangered species of fish in Lockeport's commercial fishing area did not become endangered as a result of the use of gill nets by fishing fleets.

The endangered species of fish caught by Lockeport's commercial fishing fleet are of no commercial value.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
Lockeport's commercial fishing boats use gill nets, which kill many of the netted fish, including some fish of endangered species.	What it says: Gill nets used by Lockeport boats kill lots of fish, including endangered ones What it does: Sets up the problem that needs solving What it is: Author's description of current situation Visualization: Current situation: Gill nets → 25-30 fish caught → 15-20 fish die (including 3-5 endangered species)
The fishing commission has proposed requiring the use of tent nets, which do not kill fish; boat crews would then throw back fish of endangered species.	What it says: Commission wants to switch to tent nets that don't kill fish, so crews can release endangered species What it does: Introduces the proposed solution to the fish-killing problem What it is: Commission's proposal Visualization: Proposed solution: Tent nets → 25-30 fish caught → 0 fish die → endangered species thrown back alive
Profitable commercial fishing boats in similar areas have already switched over to tent nets.	What it says: Other successful fishing operations in comparable areas already use tent nets What it does: Provides evidence that the switch can work financially What it is: Supporting evidence Visualization: Similar areas: Fishing boats using tent nets → still profitable
The proposal can therefore be implemented without economic harm to Lockeport's commercial fishing boat operators.	What it says: We can make this change without hurting Lockeport boat operators financially What it does: Draws the main conclusion based on the evidence from similar areas What it is: Author's conclusion

Argument Flow:

The argument starts by identifying a problem (gill nets kill fish including endangered species), then presents a solution (switch to tent nets), provides evidence that this solution works elsewhere (profitable boats in similar areas use tent nets), and concludes that Lockeport can make the switch without economic harm.

Main Conclusion:

The tent net proposal can be put into place without causing financial damage to Lockeport's commercial fishing boat operators.

Logical Structure:

This is an argument by analogy. The author uses the success of tent nets in 'similar areas' as evidence that Lockeport will also succeed. The logic is: if other comparable fishing operations can be profitable with tent nets, then Lockeport's operators can too. The strength of this argument depends entirely on how truly 'similar' those other areas are to Lockeport's situation.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Weaken - We need to find information that would reduce our belief in the conclusion that tent nets can be implemented without economic harm to Lockeport's boat operators

Precision of Claims

The conclusion makes a specific claim about 'no economic harm' to Lockeport operators based on evidence from 'similar areas' with 'profitable' boats already using tent nets

Strategy

Look for reasons why the comparison to other areas might not apply to Lockeport, or why tent nets might cause economic problems specifically for Lockeport operators that weren't considered. Focus on breaking the connection between 'works elsewhere' and 'will work in Lockeport without economic harm'

Answer Choices Explained

In places where the use of tent nets has been mandated, there are typically fewer commercial fishing boats in operation than there were before tent nets came into use.

This directly undermines the argument's conclusion by showing that tent net mandates typically result in fewer fishing boats operating than before. While the argument points to 'profitable' boats using tent nets as evidence of no economic harm, this choice reveals the full picture - yes, some boats remain profitable, but others apparently can't survive the transition and go out of business entirely. If Lockeport implements this proposal and some boat operators are forced to close down, that's definitely economic harm, contradicting the conclusion. This creates serious doubt about the argument.

Even when used properly, gill nets require many more repairs than do tent nets.

This actually strengthens rather than weakens the argument. If gill nets require more repairs than tent nets, that means switching to tent nets would save money on maintenance costs. This supports the conclusion that the switch can be made without economic harm, making it easier for boat operators to remain profitable.

Recreational anglers in Lockeport catch more fish of endangered species than do commercial fishing boats.

This is irrelevant to the argument's conclusion about economic harm to commercial boat operators. Whether recreational anglers catch more endangered species than commercial boats doesn't affect whether commercial boats can switch to tent nets without financial damage. The argument is focused on the economic feasibility of the switch, not on who catches more endangered fish.

The endangered species of fish in Lockeport's commercial fishing area did not become endangered as a result of the use of gill nets by fishing fleets.

This doesn't impact the economic argument at all. Whether gill nets originally caused the endangered species problem or not has no bearing on whether switching to tent nets will cause economic harm to boat operators. The argument is about financial feasibility, not about the historical causes of the endangered species situation.

The endangered species of fish caught by Lockeport's commercial fishing fleet are of no commercial value.

This is also irrelevant to the economic conclusion. Whether the endangered species have commercial value doesn't affect the costs and benefits of switching from gill nets to tent nets. The argument's focus is on whether boat operators can remain financially viable after the switch, not on the value of specific fish species.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...