Critical Reasoning

Clear-cutting a tropical rainforest exposes its shallow soil to heavy tropical rain. The soil is quickly washed away, causing floods and landslides, and preventing regeneration of the original rainforest. However, fast-growing softwoods, which can be harvested for a profit, will grow in clear-cut areas, halting further soil runoff. If we can't prevent clear-cutting, we should provide tax relief to companies that plant softwood plantations in clearcut areas in order to minimize environmental degradation.

Which of the following if true, most seriously calls into question the advisability of the above scheme?

A) Softwood plantations usually contain only type of tree, and so lack the biodiversity of the original rainforest.
B) Increasing the value of clear-cut land will encourage the clear-cutting of more rain-forest.
C) It would be cheaper to halt flooding and landslides by building dams and levees.
D) The original rainforests are clear-cut to obtain hardwoods, which are many times more valuable than softwoods.
E) Government incentives tend to have far reaching consequences that are difficult to predict and may turn out to be counterproductive.

P: Clear-cutting exposes shallow soil, causing floods and landslides ,and preventing regeneration of the original forest. Recommends fast-growing softwoods.

C: If clear-cutting can't be prevented, provide tax-relief to companies that plant softwood plantations.

We have to undermine the conclusion that planting softwood plantations minimizes environmental degradation.

A) Not concerned about the bio-diversity of the rain forest.

B) Providing incentives (encouraging) clear cutting will lead to more clear-cutting, thus undermining conclusion that by providing tax relief environmental degradation can be reduced.

C) Cost of halting flooding is not relevant to the argument at hand.

D) We have to undermine the fact that growing softwoods is not going to minimize environmental degradation, but we are not concerned about the value of softwood vs. hardwood.

E) Not relevant and going too far from the scope of the argument.

Yeah you are right. The answer was B

So how did you know that this would increase the land value? I guess that is what confused me about the answers, I originally thought that answer was out of scope because it didn't seem like the stem mentioned land value. Thanks for your input.

newton9 wrote:P: Clear-cutting exposes shallow soil, causing floods and landslides ,and preventing regeneration of the original forest. Recommends fast-growing softwoods.

C: If clear-cutting can't be prevented, provide tax-relief to companies that plant softwood plantations.

We have to undermine the conclusion that planting softwood plantations minimizes environmental degradation.

A) Not concerned about the bio-diversity of the rain forest.

B) Providing incentives (encouraging) clear cutting will lead to more clear-cutting, thus undermining conclusion that by providing tax relief environmental degradation can be reduced.

C) Cost of halting flooding is not relevant to the argument at hand.

D) We have to undermine the fact that growing softwoods is not going to minimize environmental degradation, but we are not concerned about the value of softwood vs. hardwood.

E) Not relevant and going too far from the scope of the argument.

I am not able to understand how can B say we are encouraging clear cutting? Does argument talk about increasing value of clear cut land?