Tropical rain forests

This topic has expert replies
Legendary Member
Posts: 544
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 9:14 am
Location: Pune, India
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:2 members

Tropical rain forests

by adi_800 » Fri Jul 30, 2010 8:16 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 clear-cut 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 one 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.

How to chose between E n B
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:46 am
Thanked: 27 times
GMAT Score:570

by reply2spg » Fri Jul 30, 2010 8:21 pm
IMO E
adi_800 wrote: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 clear-cut 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 one 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.

How to chose between E n B
Sudhanshu
(have lot of things to learn from all of you)

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:45 am
Location: India
Thanked: 3 times

by amritashwar_lal2k » Fri Jul 30, 2010 9:46 pm
IMO B

Advice : Tax relief to companies that plant softwood plantations => minimize environmental degradation

This is only possible if the companies are still motivated to plant more softwood

A) Talks about biodiversity of softwood. It is out o context as is not the basis for the advice

B) Talks about a factor that is causing "clear-cut". This factor should be attacked directly to craft a good advice

C) Cost is as such not a concern

D) This indirectly strenghtens the advice, as lesser the hardwood less will be the incentive for clear-cut

E) Very generic (I am fishy about this)

So, B looks the best

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 10:04 am
Thanked: 5 times

by apex231 » Fri Jul 30, 2010 9:48 pm
Should be B.

According to the argument planting soft woods slows down/prevents environment degradation because of clear-cutting of rain forests.

B. Increasing the value of clear-cut land will encourage the clear-cutting of more rain forest. - This option suggests that planting soft woods will aggravate the problem further. This is because of the financial merits of planting soft woods which would further prompt the clear cutting of rain forests thus defeating the intended purpose of planting soft woods.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 364
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 5:13 am
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:3 members

by FightWithGMAT » Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:20 am
adi_800 wrote: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 clear-cut 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 one 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.

How to chose between E n B

I picked E, but took time to eliminate A.

B should not be the answer as the conclusion is conditional. The authors is clever, including if condition in the conclusion. We can not weaken the conclusion on that condition.

Guys, how we can easily eliminate A ???

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 4:15 am
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:1 members

by dream700 » Sat Jul 31, 2010 10:06 pm
IMO B.

E is close, but it a little vague and involves uncertainty....

@ FightWithGMAT

In a strengthening/weakening question, we should take conclusion into consideration.

Our conclusion says " 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 clear-cut areas in order to minimize environmental degradation. "

It is nowhere concerned with the biodiversity of the rainforest.

Hence A is our of scope.

Deutsch750

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 227
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:15 am
Location: Colombo, Sri Lanka
Thanked: 3 times

by neha.patni » Sun Aug 01, 2010 3:13 am
adi_800 wrote: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 clear-cut 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 one 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.

How to chose between E n B
IMO B - took a lot of time to solve this

well not A - Though a good choice, but as the passage already mentions that only when clear cutting is not avoidable, we should plant softwood trees, so the issue if bio diversity is out
C - but then we don't get the same value as we may get by planting softwood trees. in fact it is out of scope
D - Out of scope
E - Can be a choice, but B clearly indicates that the practise of planting softwood trees will lead to more clear cut areas, increasing the risk of enviornmental degradation.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 305
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 5:38 am
Thanked: 10 times

by Shawshank » Sun Aug 01, 2010 5:38 am
imo -- B
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Shawshank Redemtion -- Hope is still alive ...

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 516
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:42 am
Location: Mumbai
Thanked: 14 times
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:710

by ankurmit » Sun Aug 08, 2010 3:26 am
IMO :B

What is OA?
--------
Ankur mittal

Legendary Member
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:56 pm
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:1 members

by paes » Sun Aug 08, 2010 6:48 am
IMO B

E : very generic statement.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 364
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 5:13 am
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:3 members

by FightWithGMAT » Mon Aug 09, 2010 12:58 am
what is OA?