BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

Clear-cutting tropical rainforests

Expert replies
by rjdunn03 » Sun May 22, 2011 2:31 pm
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.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by newton9 » Sun May 22, 2011 4:20 pm
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.
Join the discussion

by rjdunn03 » Sun May 22, 2011 6:13 pm
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.
Join the discussion

by sandy217 » Sun May 22, 2011 11:51 pm
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?
Join the discussion