扫描二维码，直接登录
题库 / GMATLA-CR-31
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 conclude that Tropicorp has not acted wholly out of economic self-interest. However, these environmentalists are probably wrong. The initial investment required for a successful rubber-tapping operation is larger than that needed for a cattle ranch. Furthermore, there is a shortage of workers employable in rubber-tapping operations, and finally, taxes are higher on profits from rubber tapping than on profits from cattle ranching.
In the economist's argument, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
The first supports the conclusion of the economist's argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.
The first states the conclusion of the economist's argument; the second supports that conclusion.
The first supports the environmentalists' conclusion; the second states that conclusion.
The first states the environmentalists' conclusion; the second states the conclusion of the economist's argument.
Each supports the conclusion of the economist's argument.
看清谁是谁，environmentalist还是economist
第一句是支持结论，第二句是结论。没有转折！
第一个黑脸：evidence to support environmentalists' conclusion
第二个黑脸：environmentalist's conclusion
眼瞎掉，把tropicorp看成rubber tapping。。
intermettent conclusion
Thus前后，前面的support conclusion，后面的就是conclusion
思路：T公司一直在找挣钱的投资机会，他们买了个农场来放牧，但过多几年草吃完就没用了。但实际上rubber tapping更加挣钱，而且也不会伤害环境（重点），所以环境学家推论T公司的行为也不完全是根据自身经济利益来行动的。把第二句话看懂了就能选对。。
题目的攻击点很有趣，AWA的时候可以借鉴
初始资金不够/worker不够/税收过高
C中that指environmentalists
economist ≠ environmentalist