Disscussion-GWD3-Q16

masushuang

Economist:Tropicorp, which constantly seeks profitable investment opportunities, has been buying and clearing sections of tropical forest for cattle ranching, although pastures newly created there become useless for grazing after just a few years.The company has not gone into rubber tapping, even though greater profits can be made from rubber tapping, which leaves the forest intact.Thus, some environmentalists conclude that Tropicorp has not acted wholly out of economic self-interest.However, these environmentalists are probably wrong.The initial investment required for a successful rubber-tapping operation is larger than that needed for a cattle ranch.Furthermore, there is a shortage of workers employable in rubber-tapping operations, and finally, taxes are higher on profits from rubber tapping than on profits from cattle ranching.

In the economist’s argument, the two boldfaced portions 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 the conclusion of the economist’s argument; the second supports that conclusion.

C.The first supports the environmentalists’ conclusion; the second states that conclusion.

D.The first states the environmentalists’ conclusion; the second states the conclusion of the economist’s argument.

E.Each supports the conclusion of the economist’s argument.

Why Answer-C?

masushuang

thank you so much, when I look at then the question, I did not even see the words " environmentist"... thanks.

sogapink

Another point:

The environmentalist do have their points because Tropicorp chooses cattle over rubber, and the latter could generate more profit than the formergreater profits can be made from rubber tapping = the latter could generate more profit than the formerBased 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.

sogapink

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. The indicator "Thus" leads the conclusion. Whatever is before Thus is the premise.

C) is the answer.