Q26 - Sarah: When commercial fishing boats with permits to f

[jgmartin82]

PT68, S2, Q26 (Analyze Argument Structure - Procedure)

(D) is correct.

The key here is to break down the argument structure, so let’s do it. We learn that when fishermen accidentally catch a fish they weren’t permitted to catch, they’re supposed to toss them back. Seems reasonable. Sarah say that it’s wasteful because the fish die anyway.

Accidentally caught fish
die when they’re released -->it’s wasteful to release them

We get the big juicy therefore leading our main conclusion right after that. She concludes that the fishermen should be allowed to keep the fish that are accidentally caught. So:

Accidentally caught fish die when they’re released --> it’s wasteful to release them --> Just keep them

Once again, we’re being fast and loose with the wording here because we’re not looking for logic gaps or making inferences, we’re strictly concerned with the structure here.

Let’s find out what Amar has to say about this. Amar says that if we followed through with Sarah’s suggestion, we’d have more quote unquote "accidents." What’s with the quotes? Is Amar threatening to "˜disappear’ some of these fishermen? No, he’s just referring to the accidents mentioned before, namely, accidentally catching fish. He’s saying the fishermen will suddenly accidentally catch the wrong fish more often; the quotes are saying that it won’t be an accident at all. Pretty fishy.

Can we summarize how he responded? When Sarah advised to just keep the fish, had she considered that the fishermen might abuse the new rule? No, and Amar is pointing out that she hasn’t considered this unintended consequence. He’s done exactly what we train ourselves to do on LSAT assumption problems; he’s exposed a gap in Sarah’s argument. Maybe Amar should take the LSAT. Answers, hooo!

A) is incorrect. He did question Sarah’s recommendation, but not whether it could be done. Eliminate.

B) is incorrect. What term did Sarah use in two senses? Accidentally? Amar played on what an accident could be, while Sarah used it in the same way throughout her argument. Eliminate.

C) is incorrect. He’s definitely not strengthening Sarah’s case. Elminate.

(D) gets it right. Our prediction is spot on.

(E) is incorrect. Past policies. Huh? Elminate.

[mmcnary]

I couldn't get myself to select D because of the word negative- How can we infer that just because more fisherman are keeping the fish that it is negative. If the argument already stated that the fish would not survive if accidentally caught- that is a negative consequence, but what he's talking about is people basically going around the rule- are we able to infer that that's negative when it would avoid the fish not surviving being thrown back in?

[ohthatpatrick]

It would have a negative consequence insofar as the intent of the fishing permit.

The fishing permit is designed to limit commercial fishing boats from catching certain types of fish.

Say that swordfish are endangered, so commercial fishing boats don't let you catch swordfish.

Sometimes fishermen accidentally catch a swordfish, and the permit says, "Throw it back".

If that swordfish dies as a result of having been caught, it seems wasteful to throw it back so that it can die in the ocean.

Meanwhile, if we said, "Okay, fishermen ... you can keep the swordfish you accidentally catch", then Amar is worried that fishermen would start intentionally catching swordfish and then hiding behind the fib that it was "an accident".

Since the point of the fishing permit is to preclude people from catching swordfish, changing the permit such that more people start catching swordfish qualifies as a negative consequence.