stunn3r wrote:
milind1979 wrote:
A 20 percent decline in lobster catches in Maine waters since 1980 can be justifiably blamed on legislation passed in 1972 to protect harbor seals. Maine’s population of harbor seals is now double the level existing before production was initiated, and these seals are known to eat both fish and lobsters.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument above?
(A) Harbor seals usually eat more fish than lobsters, but the seals are natural predators of both.
(B) Although harbor seals are skillful predators of lobsters, they rarely finish eating their catch.
(C) Harbor seals attract tourists to Maine’s coastal areas, thus revitalizing the local economy.
(D) Authors of the 1972 legislation protecting harbor seals were convinced that an increase in that animal’s numbers would not have a measurably negative impact on the lobster catch.
(E) The record lobster harvests of the late 1970’s removed large numbers of mature lobsters from the reproductive stock.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument above?
(A) Harbor seals usually eat more fish than lobsters, but the seals are natural predators of both.
(B) Although harbor seals are skillful predators of lobsters, they rarely finish eating their catch.
(C) Harbor seals attract tourists to Maine’s coastal areas, thus revitalizing the local economy.
(D) Authors of the 1972 legislation protecting harbor seals were convinced that an increase in that animal’s numbers would not have a measurably negative impact on the lobster catch.
(E) The record lobster harvests of the late 1970’s removed large numbers of mature lobsters from the reproductive stock.
Please someone explain me why its not D.
I brought it down to D and E but went with D. This happens to me so many times that I am now considering not to mark what I think.
Well, I would say that D is a bit out of scope here.
We are trying to prove the point that seals are not responsable for the decline of the lobsters population, hence we are trying to find another explanation for this decline.
(D) Authors of the 1972 legislation protecting harbor seals were convinced that an increase in that animal’s numbers would not have a measurably negative impact on the lobster catch.
What the legislation thought is not an alternative explanation clearly, E on the other hand gives us a second explanation that weakens the conclusion:
the decline is not caused by the seals but by the fact that "The record lobster harvests of the late 1970’s removed large numbers of mature lobsters from the reproductive stock."
Hope it's clear