Clear-cutting a tropical rainforest exposes its shallow soil

c IMO.

I think it is C too. Pls give OA

I agree with B ...but how to cancel out E ( IT STATES GOVERNEMNT INCENTIVE FOR GROWING SOFTWOOD WOULD BE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE)

C for me too. What is the OA?

Hey All,

Thought I'd jump in and break the tie here. Let's see what we got:

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.

Conclusion: Tax relief for softwood will minimize environmental degradation.

Premise: Clear-cutting sucks environmentally. Softwoods will grow in clear-cut and help a bit.

Assumption: There aren't other negative effects. Giving money to those who benefit from clear-cutting won't provide incentive to clear-cut.

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.
PROBLEM: While this is true, it would still help. The land has already been clear-cut when these get planted. That's even less biodiversity.

B.Increasing the value of clear-cut land will encourage the clear-cutting of more rain forest.
ANSWER: Now this may not minimize environmental degradation, because if there's money to be made, people will do more damage.

C.It would be cheaper to halt flooding and landslides by building dams and levees.
PROBLEM: Money isn't the issue here. I know a lot of you liked this, but look at the conclusion. The conclusion is that we can do this plan and minimize environmental degradation. It doesn't matter which method is cheaper, but which method is most useful in terms of helping the environment.

D.The original rainforests are clear-cut to obtain hardwoods, which are many times more valuable than softwoods.
PROBLEM: Again, money isn't the issue here.

E.Government incentives tend to have far reaching consequences that are difficult to predict and may turn out to be counterproductive.
PROBLEM: This implies that there could be a problem, but we already knew that. We want to know what the problem is.

Hope that helps!

-t

Hi tommy,
For option B, can you please explain how does giving incentives to people who grow softwoods increases the value of clear cut lands ?
Regards

I selected B. Excellent explanation by Tommy. Thanks a ton !!

B is the answer because the fact that "increasing the value of clear-cut land will encourage the clear-cutting of more rain forest" directly hits the conclusion that doing so the environmental problem will worsen even more

+1 B