#9 - Specific Reference, Must Be True, Purpose

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

The correct answer choice is (C).

Answer choice (A): If you try to "plug" answer choice A into this "means" relationship, it doesn't make sense. How could "making up for the scarcity of wild-caught fish" (in other words, finding a substitute source of fish) be a direct means by which wild fish populations will be restored? It can't. It would have to be the first step in a causal relationship. Finding a substitute source of fish (through fish-farming) would directly cause there to be less fishing in the open ocean. And it would be THAT reduction of fishing in the open ocean that would directly cause there to be a restored wild population of fish.

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. The sentence reads that "fish farming will restore wild populations by relieving pressure on ocean fisheries." The author thus thinks that the phrase in question (relieving pressure...) is the means by which wild (fish) populations will be restored. If you replace the "relieving pressure" phrase with what answer choice C states, it makes perfect sense. In other words, causing fewer wild fish to be caught is both a plausible and direct means by which the wild fish population could be restored. So answer choice C is a best fit, because it makes a more sensible direct cause of the restored population of wild fish.

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):


This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[medialaw111516]

Soo confused about why C is correct over A. Does it have something to do with the "restore wild populations" but before it?

[Jeremy Press]

Hi medialaw,

That's it exactly! The sentence reads that "fish farming will restore wild populations by relieving pressure on ocean fisheries." The author thus thinks that the phrase in question (relieving pressure...) is the means by which wild (fish) populations will be restored. If you replace the "relieving pressure" phrase with what answer choice C states, it makes perfect sense. In other words, causing fewer wild fish to be caught is both a plausible and direct means by which the wild fish population could be restored.

If you try to "plug" answer choice A into this "means" relationship, it doesn't make sense. How could "making up for the scarcity of wild-caught fish" (in other words, finding a substitute source of fish) be a direct means by which wild fish populations will be restored? It can't. It would have to be the first step in a causal relationship. Finding a substitute source of fish (through fish-farming) would directly cause there to be less fishing in the open ocean. And it would be THAT reduction of fishing in the open ocean that would directly cause there to be a restored wild population of fish.

So answer choice C is a better fit, because it makes a more sensible direct cause of the restored population of wild fish.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[medialaw111516]

Makes more sense now. Thanks Jeremy!

[theamazingrace]

I guessed on #9 and chose the right answer C but when I look back I am stuck between C and E. Is E wrong because fish farming is still fulfilling a demand for fish and fish products. So, C is correct because it mentions "fewer wild fish to be caught" which aligns with what is said in the passage " fish farming will restore wild populations by relieving pressure on ocean fisheries". Is my logic correct?

Thanks!

[KelseyWoods]

Hi theamazingrace!

Your reasoning is correct--fish farming is still fulfilling the overall demand for fish and fish products. "Relieving pressure on ocean fisheries" refers to meeting that demand with less wild caught fish and more farmed fish. It's about the proportion of the fish supply that is coming from farmed vs. wild, not about the overall demand for fish.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[g_lawyered]

Hi P.S.
While I was able to answer correctly, I wanted to ask if when answering these types of specific reference are we only to rely/stick to the lines before & after the reference (stay within the paragraph)? Because of this I was able to chose C over B because I thought I saw support for B in the last paragraph:

For example, increasing the farm production of fish like salmon can reduce prices, deterring investment in fishing fleets and, over time, reducing fishing efforts.

. But because the question specifically asks about the 1st paragraph, I eliminated this answer choice. Is this a correct strategy? Is this why B is incorrect because it mentions "alleviate pressure of wild fisheries stock" it doesn't address the context that it's used in? Please help me clarify this doubt.
Thanks in advance

[Robert Carroll]

g_lawyered,

Any context is relevant, but "relieving pressure on ocean fisheries" has nothing to do with the income of those who fish.

Robert Carroll

[heatherwlk]

For this question, I went with AC (E) because I thought that fish farms could relieve pressures by reducing the demands of ocean fish. Hence, in a way, it could be connected to AC (C).

When revising my work, I realized that I may have read too quickly and missed out on the specific wording of "reducing overall demand for fish" in AC (E) which may have made the choice too strong.

I can now see why AC (C) is correct since it tackles the specific category of wild fish.

Is my approach to eliminating AC (D) correct?

Thank you in advance!

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Heather,

I'm assuming your question is about your approach to answer choice (E) as you described in the rest of your post, as opposed to answer choice (D) which you wrote in your question. If that's a bad assumption, please let me know!

Your approach for answer choice (E) is right on. We want to find something that would we could use to replace the idea that there are not as many ocean fish that would need to be caught to meet the demand for fish. Answer choice (E) is about the demand for ALL fish, not just ocean caught and therefore is not what we are looking for.

Good work!