GMAT Forum
10 postsPage 1 of 1
- pravsr
*Parland’s alligator population has been declining in recent
[Deleted because no source was cited - see below.]
- srikant
IMO A.
C,D,E don't contribute any reason towards the decline of the fish population.
Only A and B are closely related to the premises. (There is no conclusion in the given paragraph.)
In B, the reason is nothing new, even though very tempting that the 'commercial fishing' company is involved, which might explain the reason for the fish to be not available to the local market. But fishing companies are doing this for past few years. They have not changed their fishing methods. Therefore they cannot be the reason for decline in the fish population.
A explains properly that the fishers have started going to new places and catching more fishes than before. Therefore population is not going to rise!
But the question remains who are they fishing for?
Are they not bringing the fish to the Parland's market to the Parland's people?
But best among the worst is A.
C,D,E don't contribute any reason towards the decline of the fish population.
Only A and B are closely related to the premises. (There is no conclusion in the given paragraph.)
In B, the reason is nothing new, even though very tempting that the 'commercial fishing' company is involved, which might explain the reason for the fish to be not available to the local market. But fishing companies are doing this for past few years. They have not changed their fishing methods. Therefore they cannot be the reason for decline in the fish population.
A explains properly that the fishers have started going to new places and catching more fishes than before. Therefore population is not going to rise!
But the question remains who are they fishing for?
Are they not bringing the fish to the Parland's market to the Parland's people?
But best among the worst is A.
- josephgreer
I disagree...
I have to disagree with the previous reply.
I would choose B not A. The previous poster stated that B was not a good choice because commercial fishers "have not changed their fishing methods. Therefore they cannot be the reason for decline in the fish population." This is incorrect. If the number of commercial fishing boats has increased, the amount of commercial fishing has increased. If you had 10 boats fishing and now you have 11, you have more people working the lake. Every extra boat increases the amount of fishing activity.
Answer choice B states that commercial fishers have increased the number of boats they use.
Premise 1: Alligator pop declining due to hunting.
Premise 2: Alligators feed on this species of fish (species A)
Premise 3: Species A is highly prized by locals for food
Premise 4: Species A pop also declining
Premise 5: # of Species A caught FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION not increasing
Okay. What if Species A is now being caught for a reason other than human consumption? (commercial fertilizer, cat food, bait). If commercial fishing has increased and is catching more of Species A, but not for human consumption, this could explain the drop in population.
What if the commercial fishermen catch Species B and Species B is Species A's prime source of food? An increase in commercial fishing activity could be reducing Species A's food supply and thus adversely affecting it's population.
What if the commercial fishing practice indiscriminately kills a set number of Species A (gill netting, drag netting ). Based on this, the increased commercial fishing activity may have an adverse affect on Species A's population.
In short, an increase in the number of commercial fishing boats could have a clear negative impact on the population of Species A.
As for Choice A: The previous poster stated "A explains properly that the fishers have started going to new places and catching more fishes than before". Clearly this violates Premise 5 above. If the fishermen were catching more of Species A for any reason, the number of Species A caught for human consumption would have risen.
A is not the best answer, in my opinion.
I could be wrong, but to me, B looks to be the best option.
I would choose B not A. The previous poster stated that B was not a good choice because commercial fishers "have not changed their fishing methods. Therefore they cannot be the reason for decline in the fish population." This is incorrect. If the number of commercial fishing boats has increased, the amount of commercial fishing has increased. If you had 10 boats fishing and now you have 11, you have more people working the lake. Every extra boat increases the amount of fishing activity.
Answer choice B states that commercial fishers have increased the number of boats they use.
Premise 1: Alligator pop declining due to hunting.
Premise 2: Alligators feed on this species of fish (species A)
Premise 3: Species A is highly prized by locals for food
Premise 4: Species A pop also declining
Premise 5: # of Species A caught FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION not increasing
Okay. What if Species A is now being caught for a reason other than human consumption? (commercial fertilizer, cat food, bait). If commercial fishing has increased and is catching more of Species A, but not for human consumption, this could explain the drop in population.
What if the commercial fishermen catch Species B and Species B is Species A's prime source of food? An increase in commercial fishing activity could be reducing Species A's food supply and thus adversely affecting it's population.
What if the commercial fishing practice indiscriminately kills a set number of Species A (gill netting, drag netting ). Based on this, the increased commercial fishing activity may have an adverse affect on Species A's population.
In short, an increase in the number of commercial fishing boats could have a clear negative impact on the population of Species A.
As for Choice A: The previous poster stated "A explains properly that the fishers have started going to new places and catching more fishes than before". Clearly this violates Premise 5 above. If the fishermen were catching more of Species A for any reason, the number of Species A caught for human consumption would have risen.
A is not the best answer, in my opinion.
I could be wrong, but to me, B looks to be the best option.
- pravsr
I got this one
I got this one correct but wasn't sure... :D
- RonPurewal
- Students
- Posts: 19744
- Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:23 am
- piy1981
- Forum Guests
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 8:18 pm
Re: Parland’s alligator population has been declining in recent
I have a question. The number of the fish declines doesn't mean they die or they hatch less, they can escape to somewhere else. A and B could cause them to escape, right? So why A and B are wrong?
- esledge
- Forum Guests
- Posts: 1181
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 6:33 am
- Location: St. Louis, MO
Re: *Parland’s alligator population has been declining in recent
This post was deleted because no source was cited.
Emily Sledge
Instructor
ManhattanGMAT
Instructor
ManhattanGMAT
10 posts Page 1 of 1