Q8 - The fishing industry cannot currently

[agersh144]

Someone please break this down for me I'm usually fairly decent on weaken questions but this question just makes my brain hurt... I am just utterly confused.

[sumukh09]

The government wants an accurate count of seabirds killed by net fishing. They want the fishing industry to count the dead birds killed by the toxins of the fish these birds eat. To do this, they recommend a program where they determine the amount of toxins in the fish; the fishing industry would then have to count the number of birds because they don't want to capture fish with toxins in them.

So for number 8 we have to find an answer choice where the government's program might not in itself provide an accurate count of seabirds.

Answer choice B does this for us: if it takes only a few of the dead birds to be examined to determine if the fish it catches are contaminated with toxins, then they wouldn't have to count all the dead birds and thus would not have to give the government an accurate count of the number seabirds killed. They could determine if the fish had toxins in them on their own.

[agersh144]

Great explanation, thank you!

[rinagoldfield]

The argument here is really pretzel-like. (Twisted.) Sumukh’s breakdown above is very good; I’ll add a few extra thoughts.

Deciphering the argument core requires reading between the lines. Basically, the government needs the fishing industry to help it count the seabirds killed by net fishing. BUT, the fishermen won’t willingly help, because counting dead seabirds could hurt the fishing industry.

So how can the government force the fishermen to help it count the birds? Or trick them into helping?

Well, the fishermen need to know whether the fish they catch contain toxins. So the government can get the the fishing industry to hand over dead bird carcasses under the guise of measuring the toxins in the birds.

In this way, the government can trick the fishermen into helping it count the number of dead seabirds. The whole toxins bit conceals from the fishermen the program’s true intention: counting the dead seabirds.

Question 8 asks us to find an answer choice that would undermine this trickery.

As Sumukh said above, (B) is a good weakener. One big assumption in the argument is that the fishermen will hand over ALL of the dead seabirds they catch in order to test for toxins. After all, the bird-counting can only happen if the fishermen fork over each and every carcass.
(B) gets at this assumption, and points out a reason why the fishermen might NOT hand over each and every carcass.

Answer choice (A) is irrelevant. It doesn’t get at whether or not the fishermen will hand over all of the seabirds.

Answer choices (C), (D), and (E) all strengthen the argument to various degrees. They all give additional reasons why the fishing industry might WANT to cooperate with a program that measures toxins in seabirds. These new incentives would strengthen the likelihood that the fishermen would send all of the bird carcasses to the government.

Hope that helps, Agersh!

[LSATN100]

I stared at this question for hours and finally figured out what the argument was talking about.

The government's intention is to count the seabirds killed by net fishing, but they disguised this intention by claiming that they want to determine the toxin level.
Contrary to their claim, the government does NOT want to determine the toxin level. They only want to know the number of seabirds killed by net fishing.
The government wants to trick the fishermen into turning in all the seabirds they killed by claiming that they are interested in the toxin level.

I made the mistake of filtering out the background information in the first sentence. So I mistakenly thought that the government wants to determine the toxin level.

[XiangruC274]

I was confused by the terms "by it self" in the question "Which one of the following, if true, most strongly indicates that the government program would not by itself provide an accurate count of the seabirds killed by net fishing?"

Because based on the stem, I noticed that the argument implies that the government would not be able to count the seabirds killed by net fishing without help from fishing industry.--->when the fish industry is not reliable, the government cannot count the sea bird killed by net fishing, and the government needs to find another way to count.
Even in the following argument about the program, it seems reemphasize the importance to get help from the fish industry. --->To count the sea bird killed by net fishing, the government need to have the help from fish industry (which will be accessible with the disguise of the program)

Therefore, when I see the "by itself" in the question. My thinking was: "Does it mean someone might argue that the government could accurately count the seabird killed by net fishing with the program alone, even without help from the fish industry? And the question is trying to refute the possible counterview by asking me to give reasons that strength the importance of fish industry? "
Therefore, my expectation is that the question is ask me to find an answer that contains either of the following two points:
1. The program is incomplete that the the government will not be able to count the sea bird kill by government only with the program (and without the help from fish industry);
2. Fish industry does something that makes it impossible to count the seabird killed by net fishing without help from the industry.

Now I see that I was wrong, thinking totally on the wrong track. But I am still quite confused about the "by itself" in the question. Does the LSAT add this term in question just to confused the examinee? Or does this term really meant something that I did not noticed?
I wonder if anyone could kindly give me some advice to avoid making similar mistake next time? Because when I look at the question again, I feel it is still quite easy for me to fall on the wrong thinking track.

Thanks in advance!