PeepalTree wrote:
Brazil enforces a number of strict international and domestic protections to ensure that the value of medicinal plants found in Brazilian rainforest will directly benefit Brazil. Such protections often cause difficulties for foreign companies trying to patent samples taken from the Brazilian rainforest. Brazil could benefit more from the value of its rainforests and future medications if it loosened these protections.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the claim about the benefits of loosening the protections?
A. International environmental activists oppose the exploitation of the rain forest.
B. Current international protections are not in place for the long term; most such agreements expire within 10 years.
C. Middle- and Lower-class Brazilians do not benefit nearly as much from these protections as do business people and government agents.
D. Under current protections, foreign companies are hesitant to invest resources they have at their disposal to identify medicinal plants in the Brazilian rainforest.
E. Among countries that include large amounts of rainforest, Brazil does not have the most restrictive protections in place.
Source:800 score
Let's break down the passage:
1. enforcing protections ensures that plants benefit Brazil
2. (but) enforcing protections causes difficulties for foreign companies
3. (therefore) loosening protections will benefit Brazil
Since the logical connection between sentences is extremely clear, we'll attempt to directly infer the answer, a Precise approach
In particular, supporting (2) --> (3) is most directly done by showing that foreign companies will benefit Brazil much more if the protections were loosened (or, alternatively, that foreign companies currently don't benefit Brazil at all).
This is exactly what (D) tells us and it is our answer.