The government of Nation X makes policy decisions intended to advance

Question

The government of Nation X makes policy decisions intended to advance the public interest, such as policy decisions aiming to promote employment, economic flourishing, and environmental protection. A policy decision can involve a significant trade-off, i.e., it can entail foreseeably giving up part or all of one valued outcome in the pursuit of another valued outcome. Does a policy decision by Nation X to permit extensive clearcutting of forests provide a valued outcome at the expense of another valued outcome?

(1) Extensive clearcutting of forests is permitted in Nation X because it provides immediate economic gains by enabling businesses such as farming and lumbering to flourish and provide employment.

(2) Extensive clearcutting of forests is permitted in Nation X even though it reduces forests’ absorption of carbon dioxide, and this indirectly contributes to global warming, resulting in adverse climate changes that are certain to be very costly for Nation X to manage.

GMATCoachBen · Accepted Answer

This is wordy, so the key is to simplify what it's asking.

It asks whether clearcutting of forests has BOTH a Positive ("valued outcome") and a Negative ("at the expense of another valued outcome").

Statement 1 is a Positive of clearcutting ("economic gains"), but we don't know whether there's a Negative, so it's  Insufficient alone.

Statement 2 is a Negative of clearcutting ("adverse climate changes", "very costly"), but we don't know whether there's a Positive, so it's  Insufficient alone.

Together, we know that there's both a Positive and a Negative, so it's   Sufficient Together (C)

PReciSioN · Answer

Can we not use real world logic in these questions? Cutting trees is known to have a negative effect. With these new DS questions it has become so hard to judge what can be and what cannot be assumed.

Oppenheimer1945 · Answer

Why does "Does a policy decision by Nation X to permit extensive clearcutting of forests  provide  a valued outcome at the  expense  of another valued outcome?"
mean 
1) It asks whether clearcutting of forests has BOTH a Positive ("valued outcome") and a Negative ("at the expense of another valued outcome").

& not

2) It asks whether clearcutting of forests has a Positive ("valued outcome") at the expense of removal of another Positive effect ("at the expense of another valued outcome").
- like getting of profit of selling a stock at the expense of Income Tax Savings ?

PReciSioN · Answer

GMATCoachBen  ,

I can make the case for both A and B here. Could you please let me know where I am going wrong/ what my approach should be for questions of these type?

A - Statement 1 is a positive of clearcutting. But cutting trees is known to have a negative effect (real world logic - which we are supposed to use in GMAT?) So a positive effect at the expense of a negative effect. So A alone can be sufficient.

B - Statement 2 is a negative effect. But the stimulus mentions that  "government of Nation X makes policy decisions intended to advance the public interest, such as ..." -  Does this not entail that the policy decision by nation X to permit clearcutting has been intended to advance the public interest and so has atleast one positive effect? By this logic, B alone can also be sufficient.

Does C have something to with the fact that the decisions are intended to advance a public interest, but the question asks for whether policy decision actually has a +ve effect. ( " makes policy decisions intended to advance the public interest"  vs  " Does a policy decision by Nation X to permit extensive clearcutting of forests provide a valued outcome ").  Not sure, why A cannot be the answer though.

Thanks!

Elite097 · Answer

KarishmaB   GMATCoachBen  isnt st 1 alone sufficient - economic gain is chosen at the expense of envornmental protection (clearcutting itself is equivalent to not protecting environment)- why do we need another negative outcome?

RenB · Answer

MartyMurray   KarishmaB   GMATCoachBen   HarshR9 
Can you give me some more clarity on the implication of 'valued' here?
Based on the context statements 1 and 2 provide, it can be inferred that both the positive and negative outcomes are 'valued', right?
I am trying to think could it be otherwise/ there could have been any trap around 'valued' given how tricky these verbal DS questions can be sometimes

KarishmaB · Answer

Clearing forests is an activity. Whether it leads to some "valued outcome" at the expense of another "valued outcome" is not known to us from the question stem.

Question:  Does a policy decision by Nation X to permit extensive clearcutting of forests provide a valued outcome at the expense of another valued outcome?

What is the valued outcome of clearcutting? 
 Statement 1  gives us that data. Extensive clearcutting of forests provides immediate economic gains by enabling businesses such as farming and lumbering to flourish and provide employment.

What is the valued outcome which is sacrificed by allowing clearcutting?
 Statement 2  gives us that data. Extensive clearcutting of forests reduces forests’ absorption of carbon dioxide, and this indirectly contributes to global warming, resulting in adverse climate changes that are certain to be very costly for Nation X to manage.

Hence clearcutting forests does provide a valued outcome at the expense of another valued outcome.

Answer (C)

prathamarora1 · Answer

The question stem clearly states that "The gov of Nation X makes policy decisions intended to advance the public interest..." Can we not infer from this that any policy decision made would by default qualify the "Provides a valued outcome" criteria. Thus, we just need evidence that it would be at the expense of another valued outcome.
Statement 1 supplies this valued outcome, thus the trade off is evident.
Statement 2 only tells us what valued outcome is gained. However, that is irrelevant since we know from the Que stem that some outcome is gained, and we don't need to know what it is.

Hence, A.
Can you explain where I am going wrong here?

SiddharthSachdeva · Answer

I marked E
my query is how do you define that "immediate economic gains by enabling businesses such as farming and lumbering to flourish and provide employment" is a valued outcome. It is an outcome for sure but what we don't know if its valued

BinodBhai · Answer

I had a hard time understanding this question.. now, finally able to see why C is correct. Try and read my solution. I have tried to keep it as simple as possible.

Question states, "policy decision can involve a significant trade-off, i.e., it can entail foreseeably giving up part or all of one valued outcome in the pursuit of another valued outcome.

Does a policy decision by Nation X to permit extensive clear cutting of forests provide a  valued outcome  at the expense of  another valued outcome ?

(1) Extensive clearcutting of forests is permitted in Nation X because it provides immediate economic gains by enabling businesses such as farming and lumbering to flourish and provide employment.  - this provides the gain of valued outcomes out of this, but doesn't address the (another) valued outcome forgone  - Hence, alone insufficient

(2) Extensive clearcutting of forests is permitted in Nation X even though it reduces forests’ absorption of carbon dioxide, and this indirectly contributes to global warming, resulting in adverse climate changes that are certain to be very costly for Nation X to manage. -  This statement tells us what the government is letting go of by choosing clearcutting of forests: that is, the government is choosing to let go of cleaner air, and to let go of lower temperatures. But what are they gaining? It's not given.  - Hence, alone insufficient

Combing 1+2 - we have both the answers - what government is gaining (employment for people) and what they are letting go (cleaner air, lower temperatures)

Hence - C

DonBosco7 · Answer

The government of Nation X makes policy decisions intended to advance the public interest, such as  policy decisions aiming to promote employment, economic flourishing, and environmental protection . A policy decision can involve a significant trade-off, i.e., it can entail foreseeably giving up part or all of one valued outcome in the pursuit of another valued outcome. Does a policy decision by Nation X to permit extensive clearcutting of forests provide a valued outcome at the expense of another valued outcome?

(1) Extensive clearcutting of forests is permitted in Nation X because it provides immediate economic gains by enabling businesses such as farming and lumbering to flourish and provide employment.

-> This basically addresses two things from the above highlighted portion from the stem a) economic flourishing b) employment, but does not talk about environmental protection at all. Hence can't decide whether extensive clearcutting of forests is valuable.  insufficient

(2) Extensive clearcutting of forests is permitted in Nation X even though it reduces forests’ absorption of carbon dioxide, and this indirectly contributes to global warming, resulting in adverse climate changes that are certain to be very costly for Nation X to manage.

-> This statement only addresses environmental protection part from the stem and also in a way some part of economic flourishing topic, But nothing about employment, Hence again can't decide whether extensive clearcutting of forests is valuable.  insufficient

Combining : We can get a fair idea that extensive clearcutting of forests does  not  provide a valued outcome at the expense of another valued outcome.

Answer C

KarishmaB · Answer

The intent is to advance the public interest. But does this policy actually do that? We cannot say till we don't have statement 1 which tells us the "gain" from this policy.

0NZ · Answer

May I ask why, in statement (1), "Extensive clearcutting of forests" is not at the expense of environmental protection? I thought this was a very straightforward common sense.

Bunuel · Answer

On the GMAT, you can’t rely on outside assumptions unless they’re stated or clearly implied in the text. Also, cutting trees is not  always  at the expense of environmental protection.

For example, selective or controlled logging can actually improve forest health by removing diseased or overcrowded trees, reducing the risk of wildfires, and allowing stronger trees to grow. In such cases, cutting trees can support both economic and environmental goals rather than harm them.

That’s why you can’t assume in statement (1) that clearcutting automatically damages the environment.

Tejasethb · Answer

The government of Nation X makes policy decisions intended to advance the public interest, such as policy decisions aiming to promote employment, economic flourishing, and environmental protection. A policy decision can involve a significant trade-off, i.e., it can entail foreseeably giving up part or all of one valued outcome in the pursuit of another valued outcome. Does a policy decision by Nation X to permit extensive clearcutting of forests  provide a valued outcome at the expense of another valued outcome ?

- We need to cater to the constraints given—i.e., 
 
 (1) Extensive clearcutting of forests is permitted in Nation X because it provides immediate economic gains by enabling businesses such as farming and lumbering to flourish and provide employment. 
 Benefit of clearcutting forest

(2) Extensive clearcutting of forests is permitted in Nation X even though it reduces forests’ absorption of carbon dioxide, and this indirectly contributes to global warming, resulting in adverse climate changes that are certain to be very costly for Nation X to manage.

--> Negative of clearcutting forest

AnkitNandwani1 · Answer

To determine if the decision involves a  trade-off  (gaining one valued outcome while losing another), we need to see if the clearcutting provides a "pro" and creates a "con" among the categories mentioned:  employment ,  economic flourishing , and  environmental protection .
Evaluating Statement (1)

(1) Extensive clearcutting of forests is permitted in Nation X because it provides immediate economic gains by enabling businesses such as farming and lumbering to flourish and provide employment. 
 
 This statement confirms a  valued outcome  (economic flourishing and employment). 
 However, it does  not  mention what is being given up. To have a "trade-off," we must see the other side of the coin. We might assume cutting trees hurts the environment, but the data sufficiency rules require the statement to explicitly confirm the loss. 
  Insufficient.

Evaluating Statement (2)
 (2) Extensive clearcutting of forests is permitted in Nation X even though it reduces forests’ absorption of carbon dioxide, and this indirectly contributes to global warming, resulting in adverse climate changes that are certain to be very costly for Nation X to manage. 
 
 This statement confirms a  loss of a valued outcome  (environmental protection). It also mentions a future economic cost. 
 However, it does  not  explicitly state what "valued outcome" was pursued in exchange for this damage. While we can guess it was for money or land, the statement doesn't confirm the "pursuit of another valued outcome" as defined by the prompt. 
  Insufficient.

Evaluating (1) and (2) Together
When we combine the statements:
 
  Statement (1)  provides the  gain : Employment and economic flourishing. 
  Statement (2)  provides the  expense : Environmental protection (CO2 absorption) and future economic stability. 
 Together, they describe a policy that entails giving up part of one valued outcome (environment) in the pursuit of another (immediate employment/economic gain). This fits the prompt's definition of a "significant trade-off."
  
 The correct answer is C (Both statements together are sufficient).

rashminuligonda · Answer

hello, i have a doubt, the passage says   can  involve sgnificant trade off but not involve sgnificant trade off.  i think the use of can makes it optional to have a negative effect. so why is it necessary that we need negative effect as well?

GulfTube · Answer

Bunuel   MartyTargetTestPrep   egmat   GMATCoachBen   GMATNinja

if the question stem had stated or clearly implied in the text that environmental degradation is the negative outcome, then answer would be  A , correct?
since question stem would then state a negative outcome of  clearcutting of forests i.e. environmental degradation, we then know that ' policy decision by Nation X to permit extensive clearcutting of forests' is at expense of valued outcome, so we are only gonna look for whether the act is providing a valued outcome or not:

1) statement 1 mentions  economic gains as the positive outcome so it is sufficient that  yes  the act of clearcutting of forests is providing a valued outcome at expense of another valued outcome.  sufficient  
 2) statement 2 says the act leads to adverse climate changes that are costly for Nation X, so it give us another adverse outcome but no mention of whether there is positive outcome or not so  insufficient

Pantheroy · Answer

Statement 1 : talks about a single valued outcome, no comparison
Statement 2 : talks about a single valued outcome(at expense of which), no comparison

only when combined these both make a comparsion and allows us to answer the comparative question at the end of question stem.

The government of Nation X makes policy decisions intended to advance

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

GMAT Data Sufficiency (DS) Questions

The government of Nation X makes policy decisions intended to advance

Prep Toolkit

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