MalachiKeti
Either way pls explain whats the flaw/gap in argument and how D makes sense if Flyna uses only lumber from certified mills - as long as it is certified whats the issue?
Hi MalachiKeti,
The most important thing here is to
prioritise targeting the certification process. This will help us take a couple of troublesome options out.
Stimulus:
1. The author implies (but does not state directly) that certification depends on both a review of documentation and surprise visits. We can attack either or both of these.
2. We can attack the staff of auditors and forestry professionals.
3. We can also attack the statement "Flyna uses only lumber from certified mills".
We should also be open to things not stated in the stimulus that could undermine Flyna's claim that its X wood supply is obtained legally.
Option A: This option uses
only before one-third, so we focus on whether {mostly Flyna employees} is better or {mostly non-Flyna employees} is better.
Generally speaking, we can assume that both hiring and oversight are easier internally (working with external providers and consultants is generally more opaque). Therefore,
option A strengthens the argument, which is the opposite of what we need.
Option B: I like this option. Cutting subsidies can be expected to lead to a further increase in illegal logging. Given that illegal logging is already widespread, even more illegal logging could crowd out legal supplies of wood.
However,
this option doesn't directly target Flyna's processes.
Option C: This option could have been good if it had told us that Flyna compromised on the quality of its inspectors. But that's not what it says. Instead, C tells us that Flyna has had to pay "higher than expected salaries" to attract qualified inspectors.
We don't care about the cost as long as the inspectors are qualified.Option D: This option stands out, for multiple reasons.
Firstly, checking for compliance almost always involves a trade-off. 10% may be a common target (as reed990 points out in
this post), but that doesn't mean that it's a good target.
Secondly, frequency is also an issue. Even though Flyna uses only certified mills, there is always the risk of noncompliance post-certification.
That is, once a mill has been certified, how can Flyna be sure that it (the mill) hasn't started (or gone back to) using wood obtained from illegal logging?By the way, this is a real concern. For example, in the garment and cocoa industries, many producers put on a show for the occasional inspection and then go right back to using (for example) child labour.
Effectively,
a mill could easily go 10 years or more without being inspected again. Therefore option D gives us a major reason to doubt Flyna's claim.
Option E: If illegal logging costs country X's government a significant amount in lost revenue, that strengthens the claim that illegal logging is widespread. It's safe to say that the more serious a problem is, the harder it is to overcome. However, we should go negative on option E, because
it doesn't target Flyna's processes.