Researchers in South Australia estimate changes in shark populations inhabiting local waters by monitoring what is te...
tomgbeanSeptember 27, 2019
D and E
I am not sure I understand the explanation for this question.
If the CPUE is constant even though the there is better technology for locating sharks, then that goes to show that E does not weaken. I would think that it does nothing to the passage, if anything I would think it would strengthen. The sharks population in the specific area remained constant even though they are pinpointed with greater accuracy. Whereas with D, the an alternate cause for their death (incidental death due to netting) may not have been accounted for in the CPUE count thus making their population smaller than is actually accounting for in the CPUSE.
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
(E) weakens because if there is a better technology for locating sharks, we would expect a higher CPUE if the shark population has not changed over the years. The fact that CPUE remained constant despite better technology suggests that the population have actually declined. (D) talks about quotas, did you mean (C) referring to the incidental death due to netting? (C) has no impact on the argument because CPUE counts only account for sharks caught by shark fishing boats, not caught in nets for other fish.
