Suncorp, a new corporation with limited funds, has been

Its E.
B: Out of scope
AD: opposite
Between B & C, My pick is E

E is the only choice that talks about the funds, which is important for the company to do this activity.

E is the clear winner

A If the soil is good in nutrients , it will support both activities - Neutral
B Cattle ranching operation at different location should not matter - Out of Scope
C it actually contradicts or weakens, why cattle ranching should not be done - weakens
D Out of scope

Can someone help me with this question, I'm a bit lost. can you help define the premise, and or conclusions, counterpoints, thanks. The goal of the question is asking me to find an assumption that will strengthen why they are seeking a less profitable endeavor correct?

Hi selfishmofo

Unlike most of the 'strengthen the argument' questions this is a case where there is no conclusion as such since the author is not trying to make us believe in something. The author instead presents certain information from a neutral standpoint.

It is the question stem which provides a clue - it says that we have to identify a reason which justifies the action of Suncorp. So, what does the question want us to do? It wants us to provide a reason which will help strengthen a position that Suncorp was correct in clearing the large sections of the tropical Amazon forest for cattle ranching.

Therefore, the goal of the question: Strengthen a position that Suncorp was correct in clearing the large sections of the forest for cattle ranching

Counter-premise for this position: greater profits can be made from rubber tapping, which does not destroy the forest, than from cattle ranching, which does destroy the forest

For option statement analysis, you can refer to the posts of thevenus & warrior123 since they have beautifully explained the options.

Hope it helps!

let start, first of all it's not a strengthen question in my opinion, we don't have a conclusion here + the wording in the question indicates that it's a kind of Resolve the Paradox question --> IF TRUE, EXPLAIN. In this type of questions both sides are factually correct and we need to explain how the situation came into being or add a piece of Information showing how the two parts can coexist (see CR Bible). To resolve the paradox we must adress BOTH facts cattle ranching and rubber tapping --> So, we must connect this to parts.

(A) The soil of the Amazon forest is very rich in nutrients that are important in the development
of grazing lands. --> none of the facts has been adressed or connected

(B) Cattle-ranching operations that are located in tropical climates are more profitable than
cattle-ranching operations that are located in cold-weather climates. --> Only one of the facts has been adressed

(C) In certain districts, profits made from cattle ranching are more heavily taxed than profits
made from any other industry. --> This disproves ONLY one fact (it's not an aim here, we must somehow connect the facts, and not just disprove one of them)

(D) Some of the cattle that are raised on land cleared in the Amazon are killed by wildcats. --> Info about ONLY one fact

(E) The amount of money required to begin a rubber-tapping operation is twice as high as the
amount needed to begin a cattle ranch. --> So 1) here we have at least both of the facts stated 2) It explains how the situation of investing in less profitable business came onto being. One need x2 Money to start a more profitable rubber-tapping business.

I hope my explanation helps you !

I don't see how you can say, with regards to Choice A, that the nutrients are good for both types of operations, when it is clearly stated "very rich in
nutrients that are important in the development of grazing lands". I thought that was restrictive.

I've given more attention to comprehend this answer option, but I still did not understand how the correct answer is "E". Anyone please to explain how the correct answer is "E"?
Thanks...

There has been given a discussion about a corporation. The corporation carries LIMITED fund.
What is limited fund? IS IT SPECIF? -Nope. It may be $ 50,000, $100,000, $200,000 or, $10,000,000. It actually depends on the company size or some other factors, isn’t it?

Suppose, Limited fund=$200,000
Let (according to correct answer option “E”),
(Dollar) needs to begin Cattle ranching=$100,000
(Dollar) needs to begin rubber-tapping=$200,000 (since rubber-tapping is twice as high as cattle ranching)

From the argument we’ve:

Cattle Ranching:
1. Lower profits
2. Destroy forest

Rubber Tapping:
1. Higher Profits
2. Do not destroy forest
Question Stem says: But, they still cattle ranch though rubber-tapping is BETTER….WHY?
Here is my question/reasoning on something:

GMAC says (since ‘E’ is correct choice):
Since (Dollar) required to begin a rubber-tapping operation is twice as high as the(Dollar) required to begin a cattle ranching, they DO cattle ranch AS THEY DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH MONEY.[i] So what? I can still DO rubber-tapping because the argument and answer option didn’t specifically say that IF THE AMOUNT IS $100,000, THEN IT IS LIMITED FUND, BUT IF IT IS MORE THAN or LESS THAN $100,000, THEN IT WON’T BE THE LIMITED FUND! So, I can choose $200,000 as LIMITED fund.
How can I be sure that the cattle ranching groups pursue LESS profit? They still earn MORE profit, because the limited fund doesn’t mean that it is JUST $50,000, it may be $200,000, too.--right? If I can earn MORE profit by limited fund ($200,000), which is needed to open a rubber-tapping operation, how/why I make LESS profit? I am still earning MORE profit by this LIMITED fund!
GMAC didn’t specifically say that Dollar needs to begin Cattle ranching=$100,000 and $$ needs to begin rubber-tapping=$200,000 (since rubber-tapping is twice as high as cattle ranching) or any SPECIFIC AMOUNT, which indicates that the fund is limited). If the argument DIRECTLY says that LIMITED fund IS $100,000, this CR will still not be okay because we are not informed the cost of cattle ranching or rubber-tapping!

The nitty-gritty: I want to say that I’ve to know the cost of cattle ranching, rubber-tapping, and the limited fund amount simultaneously. The reasoning of the argument along with correct answer option is fallacious, and thus it does not make any sense! I am not saying that GMAC is wrong; I just want to inform that something is missing in this CR. If something is missing in this CR, then GMAC’s thinking is wrong!

Analogy:
This question is totally related with decision-making.
Suppose:
I have an apartment, which consists of two rooms (Room# 1 and Room# 2). Here, this is not my job to invest in the room, which is BETTER; my job is to invest in that room, which is BETTER FOR ME as I am a decision-maker right on the moment.

Both rooms have special features. They are:

Room# 2 (equivalent to rubber-tapping):
1. It costs double than Room# 1, if I want to make it for the tenant to stay.
2. RISK factor: Tenants do not destroy anything in my room (tenants do not destroy anything because they are very good guys !)
3. It makes higher profit,

Room# 1(equivalent to cattle ranching):
1. It costs half of the Room# 2, if I want to make it for tenant to stay.
2. RISK factor: Sometimes, tenants destroy my television, freeze, AC and some other like this (this tenants are wicked guys !)
3. It makes lower profit.

Everyone wants to get high profit by investing on something; I am not regarding of that. The question is trying to give signal that I should choose one in which I can invest whole the money, which is in my pocket, in my bank account, and/or somewhere else (the total amount from these source is limited). To invest in something, at first I have to know the cost/price of that product and the volume of my fund-Is the fund enough or not? Here, I have a LIMITED fund. The fund may be worth $100,000 or $200,000, $600,000. I can’t invest in those ROOMS because I still do not know how much those rooms cost. Let, Room#2 costs $200,000 and Room#1 cost $100,000. Now, I’ll choose one, which is BETTER FOR ME not just better. I have a LIMITED fund. I do not know how much money in this fund. If the fund carries $200,000, then I must invest in Room# 2 to gain MORE profit. If the fund carries $100,000 then I must invest in Room#1 (here, I have to sacrifice higher profit as I do not have more money to invest in Room#2).---isn’t it?
But, I still do not know the volume of the fund and cost of Room# 1 & Room# 2. So, should I take decision to invest in Room# 1 or in Room# 2?----definitely not. So, how does GMAC take decision to invest in Cattle ranching without having enough information?!?

If my understanding is wrong, please correct me.
Thanks.

No response. Did I violate any rules of GMATclub?
Thanks...

Suncorp, a new corporation with limited funds, has been clearing large sections of the tropical Amazon forest for cattle ranching. This practice continues even though greater profits can be made from rubber tapping, which does not destroy the forest, than from cattle ranching, which does destroy the forest.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain why Suncorp has been pursuing the less profitable of the two economic activities mentioned above?

(A) The soil of the Amazon forest is very rich in nutrients that are important in the development of grazing lands.

(B) Cattle-ranching operations that are located in tropical climates are more profitable than cattle-ranching operations that are located in cold-weather climates.

(C) In certain districts, profits made from cattle ranching are more heavily taxed than profits made from any other industry.

(D) Some of the cattle that are raised on land cleared in the Amazon are killed by wildcats.

(E) The amount of money required to begin a rubber-tapping operation is twice as high as the amount needed to begin a cattle ranch.

please remove option E from bold text and you don't have to mention that Official answer is E since spoiler does that already.

May be ur right. I don't deny that possibility but here out of 5 options you need to select an option that seemingly weakens the conclusion.

something good or considerable need not be best always.

since options A, B, C and D are nowhere consirable we end up selecting E as a possibility.
E may help us to weaken. (It may not as well)

I have edited the question and introduced spoiler tags.

General rule to do well on the GMAT: Do not doubt Official GMAT answers. NEVER!

Quoting a very insightful post by Ronmgmat

I know it very well because I honor Ron Purewal in every cases of my life. He is legend in GMAT world. I did not say that official answer is wrong; I just want to say that something is missing in this CR. If something is missing in this CR, then Official answer is wrong or it is not perfect answer at all.

I believe you are missing a very pertinent point common to ALL GMAT questions (especially Verbal). You have to select the best OUT OF THE GIVEN OPTIONS and not the BEST EVER POSSIBLE!!. So even if an option is not the most perfect, it still is the correct answer if other options are worse. Official answers are never wrong (you also have to understand the context will be the different options provided, nothing more nothing less!).

BEST answer out of the given options? What does it mean? It means that WHEN YOU WILL HAVE AT LEAST 2 ANSWERS LOOK CORRECT or MAKE SENSE, then you'll choose or pick the BEST ONE. But, when you'll have all the answers look WRONG, WHY will you choose the WRONG answer as BEST answer? . I believe that GMAC will not inspire us to pick a wrong answer as a BEST answer!
Thanks...