Economist: Tropicorp, which constantly seeks profitable investment opp

Question

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.

In the economist's argument, the two boldface portions play which of the following roles?

(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.

GMAT® Official Guide 2019

Practice Question
Question No.:
Online test bank question number : CR02702

Similar Questions:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/economist-tr ... 86920.html

EMPOWERgmatVerbal · Accepted Answer

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.

GyMrAT · Answer

Answer D.

Question Type: Bold face

Analysis: The Economist states that some environmentalists oppose the strategy of Tropicorp & they conclude that Tropicorp does not act in its own interest. However the economist citing commercial reasons for Tropicorps strategy, concludes that the environmentalists are probably wrong. Hence BF 1 is conclusion of Environmentalists argument & BF 2 is the conclusion of the Economist's argument.

Straight forward answer D.

Same Argument , with different Bold face statements  https://gmatclub.com/forum/economist-tropicorp-which-constantly-seeks-profitable-25610.html

Surprisingly the source on this one is Manhattan GMAT.

Thanks,
GyM

aragonn · Answer

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.  --- Fact/situation/problem
 
The company has not gone into rubber tapping, even though greater profits can be made from rubber tapping, which leaves the forest intact .--- alternate/contradiction

Thus, some environmentalists argue that  Tropicorp's actions do not serve even its own economic interest.  --- a conclusion (environmentalists)

However, the initial investment required for a successful rubber-tapping operation is larger than that needed for a cattle ranch; --- explanation for conclusion/evidence

there is a shortage of workers employable in rubber-tapping operations; ----  one more evidence/explanation

and taxes are higher on profits from rubber tapping than on profits from cattle ranching.---  another evidence/explanation

Consequently,  the environmentalists' conclusion is probably wrong. ---  main conclusion (Economist)

Pre-thinking: 
Connect both bold faces with main conclusion.
1st is a conclusion. 2nd is main conclusion. D must be the correct answer.

gmatzpractice · Answer

Answer must be D
Economist disagrees with environmentalists' conclusion

Sarjaria84 · Answer

carcass   Bunuel

Not sure why this has been tagged as 'hard' in 2019 CR section, plus there are quite a few questions in CR which have been marked as new but are present in various previous OG installments.

Just wanted to bring the discrepancies to your notice.

Thanks
Saurabh

Carcass · Answer

Thank you Sir to pointed out this !!

MHIKER · Answer

The Boldface states environmentalists' conclusion of the argument and the second is the conclusion of economist argument from the economic point of view.

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

The conclusion of the argument is the last sentence, which is also the second bold-face portion .

The first bold-face portion, as can be seen from the non-highlighted part of the sentence, is the argument made by the environmentalists.

The second bold-face portion is the economist’s argument. Because Option A states that it calls the economist’s argument into question, Option A can be eliminated.

The first bold-face portion states the argument made by the environmentalists and the second bold-face portion states that it is probably wrong, so Option B can be eliminated.

The first bold-face portion is the environmentalists’ conclusion itself and the second is the economist’s conclusion. So, Option C can be eliminated.

Each of the bold-face portions is a conclusion in itself; they do not merely support the conclusion. So, Option E can also be eliminated.

Option D states the role played by each of the bold-face portions. Therefore, D is the most appropriate option.

Jayanthi Kumar.

CEdward · Answer

The key here is noting what both conclusions are
1. "Thus, some environmentalists argue that Tropicorp's actions do not serve even its own economic interest." <--- Environmentalist's conclusion
2. "Consequently, the environmentalists' conclusion is probably wrong" <--- Economist's counter argument/conclusion

With these two conclusions, we can readily eliminate.

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.

In the economist's argument, the two boldface portions play which of the following roles?

(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. Correct

(E)  Each supports the conclusion of the economist's argument.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Economist: Tropicorp, which constantly seeks profitable investment opp

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

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Economist: Tropicorp, which constantly seeks profitable investment opp

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

My Rewards