CR: Manatee

[botirvoy]

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?
A. Many tourists who visit these parts of the Caribbean are uninterested in manatees
and would not be willing to pay what the former manatee hunters would have to
charge for boat rides to see manatees.
B. Recovery of the species would enable some hunting to continue without putting
the manatees’ survival in jeopardy again.
C. In areas where manatees have traditionally been hunted for food, local people
could easily replace the manatee meat in their diets with other foods obtained
from the sea.
D. There would not be enough former manatee hunters to act as guides for all the
tourists who want to see manatees.
E. To maintain their current income, manatee hunters who switched to guiding
tourists would have to use far larger boats and make many more trips into the
manatees’ fragile habitat than they currently do.

[sd]

I would go with A because if the visitors are uninterested and/or are unwilling to pay the amount to see the manatees, then the hunters will probably be unwilling to leave hunting. They might not be interested in acting as guides and would have to go back to hunting manatees for their survival.

What is the OA?

[RonPurewal]

we're looking to WEAKEN THE CONCLUSION.

the CONCLUSION is
"the plan has promise of achieving the twin goals of giving the former hunters a good income and helping ensure the manatees’ survival"

therefore, we can WEAKEN THE CONCLUSION by showing either
* that the plan will NOT give the hunters a good income, or
* that the plan will act to ENDANGER the manatees' survival.

--

the correct answer should be (e).
if the hunters would have to "would have to use far larger boats and make many more trips into the manatees’ fragile habitat than they currently do", then the manatees' survival is being placed at increased risk. note especially the pointed use of the adjective "fragile".

(a) is irrelevant.
it doesn't matter that MANY tourists are uninterested and/or unwilling to pay for the tours, since the passage has already guaranteed us that "tourist interest is high".
MANY just means that we can find a bunch of tourists who aren't interested. this doesn't, at all, weaken the conclusion that tourist interest is high.
analogy:
if i determine that, in some area, local interest in eating cheeseburgers is high, then i should probably open a burger joint (if there isn't already one open) in that area. if i find "many" people in the area that don't eat cheeseburgers, that doesn't impact my existing statement that local interest in eating the burgers is high - again, we don't need everyone to be on board.

[botirvoy]

thanks Ron!
OA E

[RonPurewal]

thanks Ron!
OA E

you got it

[Jason.tuyj]

Yeah, the explanation is loud and clear

So why C is out!!! Not enough hunters to act as guides for all the tourists.

They don't have manpower then their income will become short, right?

we're looking to WEAKEN THE CONCLUSION.

the CONCLUSION is
"the plan has promise of achieving the twin goals of giving the former hunters a good income and helping ensure the manatees’ survival"

therefore, we can WEAKEN THE CONCLUSION by showing either
* that the plan will NOT give the hunters a good income, or
* that the plan will act to ENDANGER the manatees' survival.

--

the correct answer should be (e).
if the hunters would have to "would have to use far larger boats and make many more trips into the manatees’ fragile habitat than they currently do", then the manatees' survival is being placed at increased risk. note especially the pointed use of the adjective "fragile".

(a) is irrelevant.
it doesn't matter that MANY tourists are uninterested and/or unwilling to pay for the tours, since the passage has already guaranteed us that "tourist interest is high".
MANY just means that we can find a bunch of tourists who aren't interested. this doesn't, at all, weaken the conclusion that tourist interest is high.
analogy:
if i determine that, in some area, local interest in eating cheeseburgers is high, then i should probably open a burger joint (if there isn't already one open) in that area. if i find "many" people in the area that don't eat cheeseburgers, that doesn't impact my existing statement that local interest in eating the burgers is high - again, we don't need everyone to be on board.

[RonPurewal]

Yeah, the explanation is loud and clear

So why C is out!!! Not enough hunters to act as guides for all the tourists.

They don't have manpower then their income will become short, right?

i will assume that you're talking about choice (d), not (c).

think a little bit more carefully about what you're saying here -- if there are not enough hunters, than the existing hunters will experience exactly the opposite!
whenever there is a shortage of any kind of professional to satisfy a given need, the few professionals who can do the work will be in overwhelming demand, and will be able to work as much as they want.

[Beatrice Michael]

Ron

According to you/the analyis ..

therefore, we can WEAKEN THE CONCLUSION by showing either
* that the plan will NOT give the hunters a good income, or
* that the plan will act to ENDANGER the manatees' survival.

In A people are not willing to pay it basically means that hunters will not be able to generate good income..

in E only part of the CONCLUSIONis weakend ... tat is the manatees survival dont A and E both stand equal chances here ?

Thanks


@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

we're looking to WEAKEN THE CONCLUSION.

the CONCLUSION is
"the plan has promise of achieving the twin goals of giving the former hunters a good income and helping ensure the manatees’ survival"

therefore, we can WEAKEN THE CONCLUSION by showing either
* that the plan will NOT give the hunters a good income, or
* that the plan will act to ENDANGER the manatees' survival.

--

the correct answer should be (e).
if the hunters would have to "would have to use far larger boats and make many more trips into the manatees’ fragile habitat than they currently do", then the manatees' survival is being placed at increased risk. note especially the pointed use of the adjective "fragile".

(a) is irrelevant.
it doesn't matter that MANY tourists are uninterested and/or unwilling to pay for the tours, since the passage has already guaranteed us that "tourist interest is high".
MANY just means that we can find a bunch of tourists who aren't interested. this doesn't, at all, weaken the conclusion that tourist interest is high.
analogy:
if i determine that, in some area, local interest in eating cheeseburgers is high, then i should probably open a burger joint (if there isn't already one open) in that area. if i find "many" people in the area that don't eat cheeseburgers, that doesn't impact my existing statement that local interest in eating the burgers is high - again, we don't need everyone to be on board.

[tim]

All A says is that "many" tourists won't be interested. This is not a problem as long as enough tourists do want to take the boat rides. Remember, just because "many" tourists aren't interested, there could be "many more" who are, and we are definitely told that interest is high..

[dheeraj787]

the correct answer should be (e).
if the hunters would have to "would have to use far larger boats and make many more trips into the manatees’ fragile habitat than they currently do", then the manatees' survival is being placed at increased risk. note especially the pointed use of the adjective "fragile".

I still did not understand why E?

If Hunters to use larger boats now so what!! their income will increase right? How does this weaken ?
Secondly, now Hunters are not going to hunt the manatee but taking tourists to show them the manatee.. So what is the risk to manatee ?? How does weaken?
Pls explain.. Thanks

[RonPurewal]

The habitat is "fragile". In other words, it's easy to damage or destroy.
Think, in common-sense terms, about the impact of taking more trips, in bigger boats, to a habitat that's easy to damage or destroy. It should be pretty clear.

[momo32]

Hi Ron，

i want to ask why c is wrong. if M can be replaced, so we do not need to implement the plan

And i have a problem. for example this question, if i should consider whether the plan will be successful after it is implemented or not rather than consider whether the plan will implement!

TIA

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron，

i want to ask why c is wrong. if M can be replaced, so we do not need to implement the plan

Nope.

Choice C is evidence for the idea that the plan will succeed.

The plan requires that the hunters stop eating manatee meat.
Choice C guarantees that there will be an easy alternative available for them. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.

[RonPurewal]

And i have a problem. for example this question, if i should consider whether the plan will be successful after it is implemented or not rather than consider whether the plan will implement!

TIA

I don't know what "TIA" means.

The solution to this problem is, in essence,
1/ Read the words.
2/ Do what they say.

The problem asks about "the plan's chance of success". That's the chance that it will succeed if implemented.
Whether it's likely to be implemented is irrelevant.

This is really just common-sense reading. Read the prompt questions just as you'd read anything else out in the real world.
E.g., if we're talking about a test, and I say "Random guessing has almost no chance of success", I'm not talking about how likely it is that you or I will have to guess in the first place. I'm talking about the chance that random guessing will have good results if we do it.

[asmitajolly]

Apologies for re-opening an old thread. Request Ron or Manhattan GMAT team to kindly clarify my following doubt.

In option E, is it fine to assume that larger boats and many more trips into the fragile habitats is riskier. When I was solving the question, it seemed that option E is a mere statement and we are being forced to assume certain things in order to convince ourselves that this will weaken the conclusion. No where has the author mentioned that larger boats will be riskier in anyway.

Just as we can assume that many tourists (option A) may exclude a lot many other tourists who will be willing to pay, we can assume that larger boats (option e) may not cause any damage to the fragile habitat.

To sum, it seems we have to assume certain points in both option a & e to reach to final answer. How do we decide what is more important.

Thanks in advance!!