In response to increasing environmental concerns and new government re

Hello SomeOneUnique,
Thanks for taking the time to explain. However unfortunately I can't seem to agree with the reasoning for B. In the chart, the 5% increase shown IS ON TOTAL COST as mentioned in the category head on the left. so we indeed can figure out a possible increase in the total cost.



Secondly, as you mentioned, "we do not have the earlier total in order to calculate the increase"; the traditional total cost from the chart is our earlier expense.
In short, I see all the information available to infer the scenario. Please let me know if there's anything otherwise that I'm not seeing. TIA.

Yep! I see what you're saying, so I changed the question into a true/false format.

Perfect! Thanks

Either way answer will not change to a 'Yes'. It will remain 'No'.

financial support should be quantitative and mentioned by the financial team, right? Not just mentioned as potential benefit in the context of CEO.

If I understood your question correctly, then yes. It is mentioned quantitively in the email: "we estimate that Woodchuck Timber Co. will qualify for approximately $70,000 in grants per year."

1. Part 1. We are asked to figure out which statements are true and which are false.

- Woodchuck Timber Co. may receive financial support from government agencies. In Email 1: “These changes..., potentially opening us up for subsidies and grants from environmental agencies.” So, this statement is true.

- Implementing sustainable practices will increase the company’s operating costs by over 15%. The table shows that the total costs for the company will go from $50,000 to $55,000. This is an increase in $5,000 or 10% of $50,000. 10% is less than 15%, so this statement isn’t true.

- Adopting sustainable practices may enhance the company’s reputation. In Email 1: “These changes will improve our public image.” So, this statement is true.

2. Part 2. The question asks us to find which statement best supports the argument for adopting sustainable practices.

- Woodchuck Timber Co. will likely qualify for grants from environmental agencies. Email 2 does say: “we estimate that Woodchuck Timber Co. will qualify for approximately $70,000 in grants per year.” However, this isn’t the reason why the company is adopting sustainable practices in the first place. So, this statement doesn’t work.

- Sustainable practices could lead to reduced regulatory fines and penalties over time. Email 2 says that this is true: “there may be long-term savings as sustainable practices could reduce regulatory fines and penalties.” However, once again, this isn’t the reason why the company is adopting sustainable practices in the first place. So, this statement doesn’t work.

- There is a significant annual increase in operating costs due to eco-friendly equipment and conservation land. This is rather a negative behind adopting sustainable practices. So, this statement doesn’t work.

- Traditional practices are less costly and require fewer resources than sustainable practices. Here, it can be used as a negative for adopting sustainable practices. So, this statement doesn’t work.

- Sustainable practices align the company with the Green Lumber Certification program, potentially improving its reputation. In Email 1, the CEO said that: “I believe this is a crucial step for our future growth and approval rates with both the public and government.” The statement is essentially the corollary. So, this statement works.

3. Part 3. We are asked to find the statement that would most likely reduce the overall costs associated with the Sustainable Logging Initiative and be based on the text. All of the possible options seem reasonable, however, only government grants are mentioned in the text to be used as way to cut costs. So, our answer is: Seeking additional government grants to further offset the increased operating costs.