#14 - A new tax law aimed at encouraging the reforestation

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Must Be True. The correct answer choice is (D)

This stimulus provides a fact set with no real conclusion, although we might have some reaction to the information presented. The referenced program is intended to increase the region’s forested land. In the one example discussed, however, the program led to a net decrease in forested land. Thus, we might react by drawing from the example the idea that the program in some cases can have counterproductive results. This is precisely what answer choice (D) explains.

Answer choice (A): This answer is far too broad to be justified by the stimulus. There is no way to assess whether the program has completely failed to encourage reforestation; all we can draw from the stimulus is that there was at least one case with counterproductive results.

Answer choices (B), (C), and (E): These answers are also unsupported, as there is no way to know whether the program will have any immediate effect, if there will be any net effect, or if there will ultimately be a “massive decrease” based on the limited information in the stimulus.

Answer choice (D): As explained above, this is the correct answer choice.

[rameday]

Hello,

I have a question about LR. It is question 7 on page 1-12 of the course book. I was a bit confused with respect to that question. I am reverse engineering that question and I am a bit stuck as to why C is a wrong answer. I also don't understand why D is correct though. What would be an ideal pre-phrase to have when tacking then the answer choices. My pre-phrase was something along the lines of it is a failure/had unintended consequences.

[Ron Gore]

The issue with your prephrase is that is is too definitive in saying it is a failure. While it is true that the law has a loophole that companies can exploit, as one company did, we can't say that the law is a failure altogether. The proper prephrase would be to say that the law has a loophole that companies can exploit.

Answer choice (C) is wrong because it says what companies will ultimately do, when we have no clue what companies will ultimately do. We know what one company has done, but that's it. Answer choice (D) is correct because it captures the fact that the stimulus only tells us about what one company has done. We know that it is possible for the law to motivate companies to act in a manner contrary to the purpose of the law, because one company has done so.

Thanks!

Ron

[sa3334]

Hi,
I'm having trouble understanding the stimulus. Can you please explain what exactly the loophole is?

[Alex Bodaken]

sa3334,

Sure, and thanks for the question! Here's the problem/loophole: the stimulus states that this new tax law is designed to get more cleared land to be reforested. But then, the stimulus describes how at least one company was able to get credit under this law for reforesting land, even though in order to pay for it, they actually cleared more land than they reforested. That's the issue - that the law is providing an incentive for companies to clear more land than they reforest, even though the law was designed to increase the overall volume of reforested land. That is the situation described by answer choice (D), making it the credited answer.

Hope that helps!
Alex

[lizaetillman]

The issue with your prephrase is that is is too definitive in saying it is a failure. While it is true that the law has a loophole that companies can exploit, as one company did, we can't say that the law is a failure altogether. The proper prephrase would be to say that the law has a loophole that companies can exploit.

Answer choice (C) is wrong because it says what companies will ultimately do, when we have no clue what companies will ultimately do. We know what one company has done, but that's it. Answer choice (D) is correct because it captures the fact that the stimulus only tells us about what one company has done. We know that it is possible for the law to motivate companies to act in a manner contrary to the purpose of the law, because one company has done so.

Thanks!

Ron

I was a little shocked to get this one wrong -- I thought I had it. I chose C as well. So is the "will ultimately.....companies" the reasons why this failed?

[Robert Carroll]

Liza,

The stimulus gives information about one situation. In that situation, the amount of land harvested and the amount of land planted differed. Because we don't know about other situations, we can't extrapolate beyond that. So we lack information about the overall effects of this law. In the one situation we know about, the effects are contrary to those in answer choice (C), and in other situations, the effects are unknown.

Robert Carroll

[Juanq42]

I incorrectly chose answer E) it will provide lumber companies with a tax incentive that will ultimately be responsible for a massive decrease in the number of mature forests in the region.

After reflecting on why I get this question wrong, I realized that this answer choice assumes that other lumber companies will act as the "one lumber company" in the stimulus and that cannot be fully predicted?

Am I correct in my evaluation? Are there other reasons as to why answer E is incorrect?

[Adam Tyson]

That's a solid analysis, Juanq42, and a good reason to reject that answer choice. Also, consider how strongly worded it is - it WILL have that effect? A MASSIVE decrease? The evidence in the passage is far too weak to support such strong claims. It COULD have an effect, and that effect MIGHT be large - that's about as far as we could go based on "one company did it and the result was some reduction in the number of trees." Extreme language is suspect in Must Be True questions. Not always wrong, because the stimulus could perhaps have language strong enough to support a strong answer, but always suspect and worth scrutiny.

[Albertlyu]

sa3334,

Sure, and thanks for the question! Here's the problem/loophole: the stimulus states that this new tax law is designed to get more cleared land to be reforested. But then, the stimulus describes how at least one company was able to get credit under this law for reforesting land, even though in order to pay for it, they actually cleared more land than they reforested. That's the issue - that the law is providing an incentive for companies to clear more land than they reforest, even though the law was designed to increase the overall volume of reforested land. That is the situation described by answer choice (D), making it the credited answer.

Hope that helps!
Alex

hi Alex,

the way i read it, the aim of the law is to have more forested land and according to the stimulus, we do not know if the land they sold for purchasing the new land was actually forested, it seems to me we do not know if the goal has been achieved? can you please clarify, thanks.

ALBERT