Clear-cutting a tropical rainforest exposes its shallow soil

Question

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?

Softwood plantations usually contain only one type of tree, and so lack the biodiversity of the original rainforest.
 Increasing the value of clear-cut land will encourage the clear-cutting of more rain forest.
 It would be cheaper to halt flooding and landslides by building dams and levees.
 The original rainforests are clear-cut to obtain hardwoods, which are many times more valuable than softwoods.
 Government incentives tend to have far reaching consequences that are difficult to predict and may turn out to be counterproductive.

dreambeliever · Answer

A?

crick20002002 · Answer

I am inclined towards E, though it looks like a generalized statement. Tough question

. What is the OA and OE ? Crick

GyanOne · Answer

Pretty sure it is (B).

(A): Biodiversity is not an issue here. Irrelevant. 
(B): If the government provides the tax incentives, what will happen? Clear cut land will clearly (pun not intended) become more valuable, because any company that plants softwoods there stands to gain from harvesting them for a profit AND benefiting from the government tax relief. Therefore more and more companies will clear cut land, hastening environmental degradation rather than minimizing it. 
(C): We are not discussing the cheapest option here but the most effective one from amongst those present. Incorrect.
(D): Even if the original rainforests were cut to yield hardwoods which are many times more valuable than softwoods, there is no evidence on which is more profitable after the tax relief has been provided. If, after the tax relief, there is more value in planting softwoods rather than cutting down hardwoods, this scheme may succeed. If not, it will not. We do now know. Insufficient => Incorrrect.
(E): This choice relates general government incentives to the situation at hand, which may or may not hold. Incorrect.

mayansd · Answer

hmm, tough question, I chose B, but not confident.

According to me, only three choices (A, B, E) come close:

A. It says the biodiversity of original rainforest gets affected. As the premises state that "regeneration of original rainforest is prevented", I kept this choice on hold. But  A is wrong  because conclusion states that main goal is to "minimize environmental degradation" and not restore original rainforests as they were earlier..

B. This maybe correct answer as pointed out by Gyanone.  But  even if more rainforests get clear cut, fast growing softwoods can still be planted for profits and minimize environmental degradation.

Confused a bit, but will hold on to B for the moment.

E. If government incentives have been counterproductive in the past, there is no reason to believe that they will be successful this time. This choice weakens the argument, but it is vague and general in its approach, as "tend" and "may" reflect.

Confused between B and E, but if this question was asked in the exam, would have gone with B.

OA, OE??

mehtakaustubh · Answer

i also support B

Posted from my mobile device

mrblack · Answer

I vote for B as well.

We want to know which choice WEAKENS the argument that tax relief will minimize environmental degradation.

A) Not relevant - biodiversity has nothing to do with environmental degradation (floods, landslides...etc). 
B) ANSWER - by increasing the value of the clear cut land more companies will cut trees, resulting in more environmental degradation.
C) Not relevant - nothing to do with tax relief or the environment.
D) Hardwood was not mentioned in the question.
E) Not relevant - Far reaching consequences are not our concern.

jagdeepsingh1983 · Answer

i go with B.
tax relief to companies that plant softwood plantations in clear-cut areas  in order to minimize environmental degradation 
Environmental degradation increases if Govt tax relief which lead to more clear cutting

mrblack · Answer

what's the OA?

bschool83 · Answer

fast-growing softwoods, which can be harvested for a profit, will grow in clear-cut areas

If it is profitable to grow softwoods, then there will be even more tree-cutting.

B is correct.

sun01 · Answer

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?

Softwood plantations usually contain only one type of tree, and so lack the biodiversity of the original rainforest.  irrelevant

Increasing the value of clear-cut land will encourage the clear-cutting of more rain forest. -  Correct

It would be cheaper to halt flooding and landslides by building dams and levees. - Shell game.  One of the way to undermine the conclusion. Argument is telling the plantation of softwood to prevent soil erosion. Argument is not talking of the cost involved in the measures either softwood or dames/levees.

The original rainforests are clear-cut to obtain hardwoods, which are many times more valuable than softwoods. -  Strengthen

Government incentives tend to have far reaching consequences that are difficult to predict and may turn out to be counterproductive.-  Strengthen.

bharatemail · Answer

+1 for B

Clear-cutting a tropical rainforest exposes its shallow soil

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards