The argument for “monetizing”—or putting a monetary value on—ecosystem

Please comment on personal explanation:
1. D. Monetization can serve as a means of representing persuasively the value of environmental conservation.
Explanation:
But according to David Pearce, that illusion stems from the fact that “services” provided by ecological systems are not traded on the commodities market, and thus have no readily quantifiable value. To remedy this, says Pearce, one has to show that all ecosystems have economic value—indeed, that all ecological services are economic services.

2. C A wildlife preserve that draws many international travelers
Explanation: one has to show that all ecosystems have economic value.

3. A The centrality of economic interests to people’s actions
Explanation: In Gretchen Daily’s view, monetization, while unpopular with many environmentalists, reflects the dominant role that economic considerations play in human behavior, and the expression of economic value in a common currency helps inform environmental decision-making processes.
ie. economic interest = economic considerations; human behavior = people's action

4. C They have sometimes been charged with failing to use a particular strategy in their pursuit of conservational goals.
Explanation: Some critics blame this impasse on environmentalists, whom they believe fail to address Conservation can appear unprofitable when compared with the economic returns derived from converting natural assets (pristine coastlines, for example) into explicitly commercial ones (such as resort hotels).
ie. Critics say environmentalists did not consider Conservation can appear unprofitable when compared with economic returns derived from converting natural assets into explicitly commercial ones. ---> Critics questions environmentalists strategy

Hello, I remember I used to chat with you in chat box hehe :D

I've just tried this one and got all 4 correct. Hope my sharing will help.

Q4. Which of the following can be inferred from the passage concerning the environmentalists mentioned in line 8?

Spot some sentences surrounding "environmentalists" in line 8, especially look carefully at the sentence including that word.

"Concern about the depletion of natural resources is widespread, but this concern, in the absence of an economic argument for conservation, has not translated into significant conservational progress. Some critics blame this impasse on environmentalists, whom they believe fail to address the economic issues of environmental degradation. Conservation can appear unprofitable when compared with the economic returns derived from converting natural asset(pristine coastlines, for example) into explicitly commercial ones (such as resort hotels)."

--> I believe that we may not need the missed line "the economic issues of environmental degradation" to answer, because in fact, I did got the question right without that information. Still, I searched on google and found the missing piece as above for your reference.

Summary of the above sentences: natural resources' depletion... lots of people know it .... but conservation is difficult without economics-related support... Environmentalists are blamed for the problem, because they fail to address "something". The following sentence "Conservation can appear unprofitable..." gives more details about "something". Information about conservation in that last sentence sounds quite negative, so I guessed that "something" is an obstacle in environmental conservation.

Now move on to 5 options

A. They are organized in opposition to the generation of income produced by the sale of ecological services.
Totally wrong. Nowhere in the passage could we infer that environmentalists in line 8 go against someone/something. Hence, "income produced by the sale of ecological services" is mentioned later at the end of the passage, in which many environmentalists are unfamiliar to it, rather than oppose it. OUT.

B. They are fewer in number but better organized and better connected to the media than their opponents.
Out of scope. Nothing related to number, manner of organization and connection to media of both environmentalists and their opponents could be inferred from the passage. OUT.

C. They have sometimes been charged with failing to use a particular strategy in their pursuit of conservational goals.
Yes, this is the same as the above reasoning. Their opponents accuse environmentalists of conversational deadlock, for the reason that environmentalists do not deal with the problem/obstacle that is explained in the sentence "Conservation can appear unprofitable......" CORRECT!

D. They have been in the forefront of publicizing the extent of worldwide environmental degradation.
Such a distortion. Environmental degradation issue is spread widely - Yes! But we definitely cannot infer that environmentalists lead this effort. Environmentalists are mentioned only as causing standstill situation of conservation. OUT.

E. They define environmental progress differently and more conservatively than do other organized groups of environmentalists.
Neither "other organized groups of environmentalists" nor "definition of environmental progress" is discussed in the passage. Thus, the above information cannot be inferred. OUT.

The above is just my personal reasoning. Willing to hear your comment(s), if any. Thanks!

Hello bro, i too remember working out on many questions in the chatroom with u. It is fun to have a healthy discussion to clear out any tiny bit of doubt.

I didn't understand before your explanation that "failing to use a particular strategy" referred back to "fail to address the economic issues". I guess after reading your explanation it makes sense. I was unable to comprehend the "particular strategy".

Thank you so much for this detailed overview of the question.

Let me know in case you need any sort of help.

Hi - For the below question, i selected A but the OA was C.

Question : why isnt A the right answer ? The following reason is why i picked "A"

wording in passage " according to David Pearce, that illusion stems from the fact that “services” provided by ecological systems are not traded on the commodities market,and thus have no readily quantifiable value"..........


Did not like C because counting the international visitors is quantifiable ...hence eliminated C..

In A, the impact of the good location on the hotel is not countable ...

Thoughts ?

---------------------------------------------

Which of the following most clearly represents an example of an “ecological service” as that term is used in line 20?

A. A resort hotel located in an area noted for its natural beauty
B. A water-purifying plant that supplements natural processes with nontoxic chemicals
C. A wildlife preserve that draws many international travelers
D. A nonprofit firm that specializes in restoring previously damaged ecosystems
E. A newsletter that keeps readers informed of ecological victories and setbacks

Hi,

It would really help if you look closely at the sentence following your cited one:
"To remedy this, says Pearce, one has to show that all ecosystems have economic value—indeed, that all ecological services are economic services."

--> The "quantifiable value" should be understood from economics perspective. Frankly speaking, it's all about money.

C. A wildlife preserve that draws many international travelers
--> "Tourists visiting wildlife preserves, for example, create jobs and generate income for national economies;" In order to facilitate good services for tourists, many companies specializing in transportation, tour guides and other kinds will emerge, thus creating jobs and generating income for national economies... These economic values cannot be realized immediately, but rather in the long-run. CORRECT

Regarding why option (A) is wrong:

A. A resort hotel located in an area noted for its natural beauty
--> Yes, I agree with you that "In A, the impact of the good location on the hotel is not countable ..." as you said; however, the option should be understood as: "A resort hotel......[modifier]......" most clearly represents an example of an “ecological service”. In other words, "resort hotel", instead of "natural beauty" of its location, is the example this option suggests. As you may know, "resort hotel" is not an "ecosystems". OUT.

The above is just my personal thought. I'm not sure how OG explains the correct answer, so you can read OG for clarification.

I have taken 2mins:15secs to read and write the point of the passage:

I took
110secs - 1st Q - Wrong
70 secs - 2nd Q - Wrong
75 secs - 3rd Q - Right
12 secs - 4th Q - Wrong

The accuracy you see above tells you that I'm not an expert on the Topic. But this is what my analysis of my shortcoming:
Mistake#1:
Reading the passage: Thinking about reading the whole passage in 2mins kills the comprehension ability, I skim all the important decision points. Because of which, I have a different story about the passage in my head.

Q1: This is an inference Question
The context of the passage which you need to know to answer this Q lies between line 15 and 25.
Analysis: Monetization has to elements in it, they are Environment and Economical benefits. So, Our Buddy David believes that Monetization is an environmental conservation strategy and it is difficult to prove the economic benefit of it. So, we should somehow to link this strategy to an economic benefit. And David give two examples to explain the same idea to dumb people like me, who don't understand complex structured sentences.

B- Nowhere in the whole passage, we see testing or not testing a strategy - Eliminate
C- This is complete crap because David told that we have to link the Environmental strategy like monetization to commercial benefits, but this choice talks about restricting to only ecological service. Moreover, GMAT authors think we test takers are idiots and add so heard words like tourism and recreation. Dumbasses like me chose this choice. Like I did, because of the wordings.
E- This choice is a clear NO because David's idea was to portray the ecological goals to commercial benefits - Eliminate

Two devil choices: D Vs A:
A is good till the environmentalists but fails to reference indicate who are these Critics. We generally tend to think critics are opponents to Environmentalists, that not the case. A group of critics may comprise of Environmentalists and Economists. - Eliminate;

D- Correct.


Q2: This is a Specific Details Question
Read line 19 to 20 quickly to get the taste of what is being tested there. So, David believes that Services are ecological only when they provide economic benefits.

A- We are not sure, what is happening with this hotel, is it operating? People prefer to visit that? Are people working? No answers to these questions. - Eliminated
B- See the above reasons mentioned for A, the choices B C E, are all same with a different type of businesses, we are 100% sure that these businesses provide any economic/commercial benefits. Screw them - Eliminated.

But Choice D answers perfectly, Wildlife preserves- preserves wildlife = Environmental benefits & attracts tourist = Commerical benefit. Cool... This is the answer.



Q3: According to the passage,...... ---> Specific Q.
There are two steps to perform to answer a specific Question,
Step1: Find the context, read the lines in the passage.
Step2: Answer choice you choose should comprehend the same as what you comprehended in step1

So, here Context is Daily's idea about monetization. It is easy to locate Names in the passage, with that you can see last 5 lines would be the place to have to read and comprehend.
Frankly speaking, I could comprehend 100% of Daily's idea, but what I could get is the monetization effects human behavior.So, answer choice that talks about human behavior is A.

Q4: This is again an inference Q
Read the line 8 to get the context. My comprehension is that some critics blame environmentalists for the strategy of monetization is not have shown any improvement in conservation.
Hunting down the answers:
A- There is no income or financial aspect happened between some critics and environmentalists - Eliminated
B- We don't know about the number that group- Eliminated
D- We don't know who is the front seat and who is at the back - Eliminated
E - This talks about 'Groups' of environmentalists, can you name two names of groups- No then Eliminate this choice

C- references the right spot that Environmentalists sometimes need to take the blame because they might sometimes fail on strategies. - Correct


If you enjoyed and learned from my analysis-Good, but please point out any errors in my analysis. At the end of the day that is what matters the most, LEARNING NEW STUFF.

----------------
Did all correct for the first time but it took me 8min30s which is too slow....

1. Information in the passage suggests that David Pearce would most readily endorse which of the following statements concerning monetization?

(A) Monetization represents a strategy that is attractive to both environmentalists and their critics.

(B) Monetization is an untested strategy, but it is increasingly being embraced by environmentalists.

(C) Monetization should at present be restricted to ecological services and should only gradually be extended to such commercial endeavors as tourism and recreation.

(D) Monetization can serve as a means of representing persuasively the value of environmental conservation.=> says Pearce, one has to show that all ecosystems have economic value—indeed, that all ecological services are economic services.

(E) Monetization should inform environmental decision-making processes only if it is accepted by environmentalist groups.


2. Which of the following most clearly represents an example of an “ecological service” as that term is used in line 20?

(A) A resort hotel located in an area noted for its natural beauty

(B) A water-purifying plant that supplements natural processes with nontoxic chemicals

(C) A wildlife preserve that draws many international travelers => one has to show that all ecosystems have economic value—indeed, that all ecological services are economic services. Tourists visiting wildlife preserves, for example, create jobs and generate income for national economies;=> It means that ecological brings money and revenue for the economic system

(D) A nonprofit firm that specializes in restoring previously damaged ecosystems

(E) A newsletter that keeps readers informed of ecological victories and setbacks


3. According to the passage, Daily sees monetization as an indication of which of the following?

(A) The centrality of economic interests to people’s actions => monetization, while unpopular with many environmentalists, reflects the dominant role that economic considerations play in human behavior, and the expression of economic value in a common currency helps inform environmental decision-making processes.

(B) The reluctance of the critics of environmentalism to acknowledge the importance of conservation

(C) The inability of financial interests and ecological interests to reach a common ideological ground

(D) The inevitability of environmental degradation

(E) The inevitability of the growth of ecological services in the future

4. Which of the following can be inferred from the passage concerning the environmentalists mentioned in line 8?

(A) They are organized in opposition to the generation of income produced by the sale of ecological services.

(B) They are fewer in number but better organized and better connected to the media than their opponents.

(C) They have sometimes been charged with failing to use a particular strategy in their pursuit of conservational goals.

(D) They have been in the forefront of publicizing the extent of worldwide environmental degradation.

(E) They define environmental progress differently and more conservatively than do other organized groups of environmentalists.=> in the absence of an economic argument for conservation, has not translated into significant conservational progress. Some critics blame this impasse on environmentalists, whom they believe fail to address the economic issues of environmental degradation. => This means environmentalists don't concern about economic aspect when running a conservation project


_________________

Hi,
GMATNinja mikemcgarry please could you help me with the following OG question


2. Which of the following most clearly represents an example of an ???ecological service??? as that term is used in line 20?

We are looking for an answer choice that shows how the "ecological factors" create some economic value and thus be termed as "ecological services"

(C) it is clear cut an "ecological services" because the wildlife preserve that draws many international travelers will create job opportunity as well as income

But what about (A) A resort does create job opportunities and since it is located in an area of natural beauty can't we say that this natural beauty is responsible for a part of the income generation? and thus be termed as an "ecological service"?


Is this a far fetched assumption?

While your point might be completely valid in the world outside of this passage, let's look at what the passage itself says about resort hotels: "Conservation can appear unprofitable when compared with the economic returns derived from converting natural assets (pristine coastlines, for example) into explicitly commercial ones (such as resort hotels)."

Here, we have a direct contrast between natural and commercial assets, with resort hotels listed as an example of a commercial asset. Because the author treats resort hotels as commercial assets, they are not great examples of “ecological services” that have not been previously monetized. Eliminate (A).

I hope that helps!
_________________

(Book Question: 418)
4. Which of the following can be inferred from the passage concerning the environmentalists mentioned in line 8?

(A) They are organized in opposition to the generation of income produced by the sale of ecological services.

(B) They are fewer in number but better organized and better connected to the media than their opponents.

(C) They have sometimes been charged with failing to use a particular strategy in their pursuit of conservational goals.

(D) They have been in the forefront of publicizing the extent of worldwide environmental degradation.

(E) They define environmental progress differently and more conservatively than do other organized groups of environmentalists.[/box_in][/box_out][/align][/quote]

I don't get it why choice C is correct. I mean, in inference we look for the choice that must be true from the passage. It could be true that environmentalists have been charged with failing to use a particular strategy, but this is not 100% true from the passage.
Please tell me do we have look for what must be true in RC inference question?

Hi,
AnishPassiTGC @abhimanha GMATNinja VeritasKarishma ChiranjeevSingh can you explain the usage of colon in this line , your understanding of this line or how you approached to understand this line because of so many punctuations in it.

The argument for “monetizing”—or putting a monetary value on—ecosystem functions may be stated thus: Concern about the depletion of natural resources is widespread, but this concern, in the absence of an economic argument for conservation, has not translated into significant conservational progress.
And what purpose of gretchen daily's view serves in the passage.

The argument for “monetizing”—or putting a monetary value on—ecosystem functions may be stated thus:

Information in hyphens can be sidelined. This is an explanation of something already mentioned.

Here "or putting a monetary value on" is the definition of "monetizing" to help the reader understand.

Everything after the colon explains the "argument for monetising". Basically, all of it explains why monetising is beneficial. That why having a quantifiable number to the benefit of ecosystems is good. An example given in the passage explains this - "undisturbed forests and wetlands regulate water runoff and act as water-purifying systems, saving millions of dollars worth of damage to property and to marine ecosystems."
So giving a monetary value of say 10 million dollars to an undisturbed forest helps make environmental decisions.

The passage is basically trying to say that since we derive economic benefit from environment (say cutting down a forest will help the govt earn a million dollars), we are not taking conservational decisions. Now, if you put a number to the value of the undisturbed forest (if it is removed, you will need to pay 10 million dollars to regulate water runoff and purify water), it will help us make decisions favouring conservation.

Gretchen Daily's view - if you put express economic value in terms of a single currency (as we did in terms of dollars above), you can make environmental decisions.
Now that we have two figures to compare - '1 million benefit' vs '10 million loss' if we remove the forest - we will decide to keep the forest.
_________________

I don't get it why choice C is correct. I mean, in inference we look for the choice that must be true from the passage. It could be true that environmentalists have been charged with failing to use a particular strategy, but this is not 100% true from the passage.
Please tell me do we have look for what must be true in RC inference question?[/quote]


IMO - Inference is something that is not stated information in the passage and by reading the passage you get a sense of direction. In this case, for option C, author initially mentions about the failing of environmentalists due to the monetary reasons. Now when you further proceed you see about the possibility of making conservation a profitable business according to certain Economist. So this gives us the flavour that Environmentalists have failed to reach the conservation goals.

Also, if you try to scan the other answer options, you will find C even more relevant.


Miles to go before I sleep

I think there is a subtle reason to choose Option D over Option C, in Question 1.

Can anyone please explain why C is wrong?

Posted from my mobile device

Hi kamrulhasan26043,

Option C is incorrect. As mentioned in the passage: "But according to David Pearce, that illusion stems from the fact that “services” provided by ecological systems are not traded on the commodities market, and thus have no readily quantifiable value. To remedy this, says Pearce, one has to show that all ecosystems have economic value—indeed, that all ecological services are economic services.Tourists visiting wildlife preserves, for example, create jobs and generate income for national economies; ", implying Option C is opposite of what David Pearce believes. According to him some types of tourism are also ecological services, that have economic value and hence should be monetized.


Hope this Helps.
Thanks.

My Summary- (feel free to correct me if I am wrong)
The author of the passage points an argument for monetary values on ecosystems. He goes on to state that though the concern for conserving the depletion of the ecosystem is widespread, but the progress is less due to the absence of monetary values on them.
He sheds a reason for the above argument by quoting critics pointing that environmentalists do not address the economic issues and hence, conservation (as a whole) looks unprofitable when compared to the returns of converting the natural assets into commercial ones.
The author brings another actor, to branch out explanation to the critic's statement by - David Pearce, he reasons this to an illusion that ecological services are not traded in the commodities market and hence do not have a quantifiable value and this should change, by ecological services=economic services. He goes on to state examples.
The author, concludes by providing another example (Gretchen Daily) for how monetization can play a dominant role in human behavior + economic expression being a important factor that would lead to better environmental decisions.

The tone of the Author- Stable. Consistent. Positive to his initial argument. Backing with facts and unraveling illusions through the passage.

Inference is something that is not stated information in the passage and by reading the passage you get a sense of direction. In this case, for option C, author initially mentions about the failing of environmentalists due to the monetary reasons. Now when you further proceed you see about the possibility of making conservation a profitable business according to certain Economist. So this gives us the flavor that Environmentalists have failed to reach the conservation goals.

Also, if you try to scan the other answer options, you will find C even more relevant.

(C) Monetization should at present be restricted to ecological services and should only gradually be extended to such commercial endeavors as tourism and recreation.

ecological systems are not traded on the commodities market DOESNOT MEAN Monetization should be restricted to ecological services. We don't know as no such restriction is mentioned.
all ecological services are economic services DOESNOT MEAN monetization should only gradually be extended to such commercial endeavors . in fact, the passage says using natural resources as it is brings economic value. It itself has monetary value in terms of creating new jobs, saving millions in property loses.

(C') Monetization should at present be SHOWN /EXPANDED to ecological services and should only gradually be extended to such NATURAL endeavors as tourism and recreation.
C' could have been answer.

You missed key word commercial endeavors . here commercial endeavors refers to resort hotels ( tourism and recreation - commercials based) ; [refer statement: natural assets (pristine coastlines, for example) into explicitly commercial ones (such as resort hotels)]

Is it only me or the passage is bit hard on comprehension part? However, the questions are easy to answer.