问gwd里的一道题目 讨论的极少

stoner28

GWD3-Q16:
Economist:  Tropicorp, which constantly seeksprofitable investment opportunities, has been buying and clearing sections oftropical forest for cattle ranching, although pastures newly created therebecome useless for grazing after just a few years.  The company has not gone into rubber tapping,even though greater profits can be madefrom rubber tapping, which leaves the forest intact.  Thus, some environmentalists conclude that Tropicorp has not acted wholly out ofeconomic self-interest.  However, these environmentalists are probablywrong.  The initial investment requiredfor a successful rubber-tapping operation is larger than that needed for acattle ranch.  Furthermore, there is ashortage of workers employable in rubber-tapping operations, and finally, taxesare higher on profits from rubber tapping than on profits from cattle ranching. However前反后支，都在前面，态度一致反对。第二个还是一个结论。文章argument是economist态度，不是environmentalist的态度
In theeconomist’s argument, the two boldfacedportions play which of the following roles?
A.   The first supports the conclusion of the economist’s argument;the second calls that conclusion into question.
B.   The first states theconclusion of the economist’s argument; thesecond supports that conclusion.
C.   ！The firstsupports the environmentalists’ conclusion; the second states that conclusion.
D.   The first states theenvironmentalists’ conclusion; the second states the conclusion of the economist’s argument.
E.    Each supports the conclusion of the economist’s argument.


我就觉得这个bf整个题目就是混乱啊有木有！上来说这个T公司弄牧场不弄割胶，所以环保学家说T并不是完全出于自身经济利益。理由是牧场要清理掉一片森林，而且牧场用几年就废了。而如果割胶的话，不仅赚的多而且leave forest intact 。这什么逻辑啊？不懂啊。怎么leave intact 的事情不做，做要clear forest的事情还算环保？？？？

linmeimeiei

greater profits can be made from rubber tapping = the latter could generate more profit than the former

Based on the above premise, the Environmentalist reaches the conclutions that "Tropicorp has not acted wholly out of economic self-interest."

Nothing wrong with that if the premise is correct.

tulip37

我不觉得"the latter could generate more profit than the former". 后面那个公司自己都说了理由.  当然有可能环境学家对, 谁知道呢.

重要的是把弯弯的题目搞直. 一边读一边写草稿:  T 公司一直做 P, 不做 RT;  而RT 利润多, 所以 E们认为 T 没把钱挣够; 但T 认为RT (1 启动钱>P, 2 人手不够, 3 税高),  所以E们可能不对.
这个问题倒是确实集中在那两句; 全部内容也没有 illogical

linmeimeiei

No. The environmentalist do have their points because Tropicorp chooses cattle over rubber, and the latter could generate more profit than the former.

stoner28

Thanks, I think I got ur point.  Just focus on the logical pattern.  So, u agree with me that the question is a littlt bit illogical concerning the environmental behavior?

linmeimeiei

This question is tricky. But if you focus on the BF, it is rather easy. What we have here is:

The company has not gone into rubber tapping,even though greater profits can be madefrom rubber tapping, which leaves the forest intact.  Thus, some environmentalists conclude that Tropicorp has not acted wholly out ofeconomic self-interest.

This is a complete argument. Thus leads the conclusion. Whatever is before Thus is the premise.

C) is the answer.