#11 - Concept Reference, Must Be True—Principle

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi there law,

We have to read the words in conjunction with the stimulus as a whole. The whole stimulus is talking about production of fish, both wild and farmed. The question about production of food then is talking about the production of fish as a whole, not either wild or farmed. Otherwise, they would have to have specified which they were talking about in the question stem or answer choices. It wouldn't otherwise be clear which of the two types of fish they were talking about.

Hope that helps!

[ange.li6778]

Could someone explain why D is wrong? Is it because saying fish farming brings about "environmental improvement" is too far? I thought reducing overfishing could be thought of as environmental improvement.

[Robert Carroll]

ange.li,

Looking at the last sentence of the first paragraph, the author is ambivalent about fish farming's overall environmental impact - the author pretty much says "it has some good and some bad." What's the net effect? Answer choice (D) would be right only if the net effect were positive, but the author says it's mixed. So we cannot conclude that fish farming is more good than bad, and that makes answer choice (D) a bad fit.

Robert Carroll

[nonowing]

I got this question wrong under timed conditions (I chose D instead of C). Here is my attempt to explain why C is right:

A theme of the passage is how fish farming will impact ocean fishery stocks worldwide. We can see this in lines 15-18, in what is arguably the thesis statement of the passage: "The complexity of production systems leads to a paradox: fish farming is a possible solution but also a contributing factor, to the continued decline of ocean fishery stocks worldwide." So, from this and the context of the first paragraph, we can infer that the author cares about the ocean fishery stock, and is interested in how this new farming method impacts it. (The previous lines also talk about how others claim fish farming will "relieve the pressure on ocean fisheries" but the author is not sure, citing "there is, however, little, if any evidence that fish farming will restore ocean fishery stocks.")

Wait, what is "ocean fishery stock" ? It's a seemingly complicated term that I did not understand under timed conditions. The key word is "stock" which in this context is the amount in reserves (ex: you click on an item on Amazon, and see that there are three left in stock). So, "ocean fishery stock" is a way of representing the available supply of fish. Put simply, the ocean fishery stock measures the number of fish that can be caught and sold.

So, the author cares about the fish population that can be fished commercially to meet "human protein needs" (Line 8-9). Going back to the thesis, the author believes there is a paradox, because fish farming could potentially increase or decrease the fish populations eligible for fishing. The rest of the passage is about illustrating the forces at play. The second paragraph discusses how fish farming might "threaten the sustainability of ocean fisheries through water pollution and ecological disruption" (lines 21-22). The third paragraph is about how fish farming requires a lot of wild fish to be caught to feed the farmed fish. Lastly, the fourth paragraph is about how recent and future actions (expanding farm production & new niche markets) could relieve or add pressure to the ocean fishery stock.

The author's conclusion is that they are not sure if fish farming will reduce the supply of fish. But their message is clear about the new method: don't do it if it reduces the ocean fishery stock (the number of fish eligible to be fished!) That's the criteria being used to determine if fish farming is worth it -- going back the thesis, fish farming is the "solution" (as in it's worth it to the author) if it increases the supply of fish. It's not worth it if it leads to the "continued decline of the ocean fishery stock." Answer C captures this, by stating that the new method should not be employed if it results in less fish being produced.

[Dana D]

Nonowing,

I think you're right on with your analysis, along with the fact that this entire passage is about when something should not be employed versus answer choice (D) which is referring to when a strategy should be employed, which isn't really touched on in this passage.

Good job!