Passage Summary: Sarah thinks fishers should keep accidental catches to avoid waste. Amar counters that if you let them keep those fish, fishers will just start 'accidentally' catching them on purpose.

Reasoning: No conclusion (Fact Set).

Analysis: Amar is using a classic 'unintended consequences' or 'perverse incentive' rebuttal. He doesn't disagree with Sarah's premise that the current system is wasteful; instead, he attacks the feasibility of her solution. He suggests that the policy change would create a loophole that people would exploit, thereby undermining the very goal of the regulation. When looking for the correct description of his method, focus on how he identifies a negative outcome that would likely result from the proposed change. It's a very pragmatic, 'real-world' response to an idealistic suggestion.