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?


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 conclusion of the environmentalists’ argument; the second states that conclusion.

The first states the conclusion of the environmentalists’ argument; the second states the conclusion of the economist’s argument.

Each supports the conclusion of the economist’s argument.

加入错题本 分享
纠错
考题讲解

情景：经济学家：在找有利可图的投资机会的Tropicorp一直在购买和清理热带雨林的部分区域，用于养牛，尽管在那里新建的牧场在短短几年后就不再适合放牧了。该公司还没有进入橡胶开采领域，尽管橡胶开采可以带来更大的利润并且可以保护森林。因此，一些环保学家认为，热带公司的行为并不符合其自身的经济利益。然而，一个成功的橡胶开采项目的初始资金是大于养牛所需要的资金的；橡胶开采所需的员工也是短缺的；并且在橡胶开采上缴纳的税也是高于养牛所纳的税的。

因此，环境学家的结论是错误的。

推理：两句的作用很清晰明了：第一句是环境学家的结论。第二句是经济学家的结论。

选项分析：

A选项：第一句支持了环境学家的结论；第二句质疑了那个结论。

B选项：第一句是经济学家的结论；第二句支持了那个结论。

C选项：第一句支持了环境学家的结论；第二句陈述了那个结论。

D选项：第一句陈述了环境学家的结论；第二句陈述了经济学家的结论。

E选项：两句都支持了经济学家的结论。

展开显示

登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论

OG2019-CR