Economist: Tropicorp, which constantly seeks profitable investment opp

BID (Boil It Down): Environ: Trop not acting in own interest; Economist: they are

The Goal: We need to identify the purpose of each statement, and the relationship between the two.

1. The environmentalists’ conclusion
2. The economist’s conclusion

The relationship between the two: The economist provides proof that downgrades the environmentalists’ conclusion.

I love this question because it really tests who's paying attention. Sloppy readers will conflate the economist and the environmentalists, and chances are, if you missed this question, that’s exactly what you did too.

So let’s take stock (and I’m going to color code the different parties here so that each one is more visually distinct as you read):

Economist: Tropicorp, which constantly seeks profitable investment opportunities, has been buying and clearing sections of tropical forest for cattle ranching, although pastures newly created there become useless for grazing after just a few years. The company has not gone into rubber tapping, even though greater profits can be made from rubber tapping, which leaves the forest intact. Thus, some environmentalists argue that Tropicorp’s actions do not serve even its own economic interest. However, the initial investment required for a successful rubber-tapping operation is larger than that needed for a cattle ranch; there is a shortage of workers employable in rubber-tapping operations; and taxes are higher on profits from rubber tapping than on profits from cattle ranching. Consequently, the environmentalists’ conclusion is probably wrong.

A. The first supports the conclusion of the economist’s argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.

B. The first states the conclusion of the economist’s argument; the second supports that conclusion.

C. The first supports the conclusion of the environmentalists’ argument; the second states that conclusion.

D. The first states the conclusion of the environmentalists’ argument; the second states the conclusion of the economist’s argument.

E. Each supports the conclusion of the economist’s argument.


The first bolded statement is a conclusion, but by whom? The environmentalists! How many options screw up even who is even making the argument in the first bolded statement? A, B, and E.

That leaves us with C and D.

Next let’s determine who is making the argument in the second bolded statement? The Economist. Notice we can now chuck option C?

That leaves us with the correct option. Option D. The first states the conclusion of the environmentalists’ argument; the second states the conclusion of the economist’s argument.

Choice D is correct. The first statement, which is preceded by the word “Thus,” is the environmentalists’ conclusion. The second statement, which is preceded by the word “Consequently,” is the author/economist’s conclusion.



The Bigger Picture

There's an important lesson in this question: can you pay attention/focus under timed pressure while your adrenaline is pumping?

The stats for this question show that most people miss it. Yet if you can focus in on even who is making each claim, it’s one of the easiest questions in the entire OG.

Remember this lesson! The GMAT lavishly rewards those who actually follow instructions and pay attention.