Q14 - A new tax law aimed

[mchuynh]

[deleted copyrighted material]

Can anyone explain to me why is the answer E? THanks!
It will provide lumber companies with a tax incentive that will ultimately by responsible for a massive decrease in the number of mature forests in the region?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Good news! It might simply be a matter of your answer key. The correct answer is (D) for this question. If you still need help with it though, let me know and I'll put up an explanation.

[mchuynh]

can you put up the explanation? Thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

This question asks us to find the answer choice that must be true given the information in the stimulus.

Here's what we know from the stimulus.

1. the new tax law gives lumber companies a tax incentive to replant cleared land.
2. one company found a way to collect the tax incentive without actually producing a net increase in forested land (they cleared one tract to pay for planting another).

This leads perfectly to answer choice (D). The tax law provided the company with an incentive to act in a way that is contrary to the purpose of the law, while taking advantage of the tax incentives. Remember the purpose of the law was to encourage reforestation, and the lumber company acted in a way that did not lead to a net increase in forested land. In fact, for the short term (while we wait for the reforested land to grow), there's a net decrease in forested land.

(A) is too strong to be established by the information in the passage. We only know about the actions of one lumber company. This claim would require a complete assessment of most (if not all) lumber companies.
(B) is too strong to be established by the information. For the one company discussed in the stimulus the amount of forested land has remained the same, but we are not given information about other lumber companies.
(C) seems to follow from the information, but is a prediction about the future that cannot be proven.
(E) is another extrapolation. This answer choice seems to follow from the information, but again is a statement regarding the lumber industry as a whole, whereas the stimulus only provides us information about the actions of one lumber company.

Does that help clear it up?

[alinanny]

This question asks us to find the answer choice that must be true given the information in the stimulus.

Here's what we know from the stimulus.

1. the new tax law gives lumber companies a tax incentive to replant cleared land.
2. one company found a way to collect the tax incentive without actually producing a net increase in forested land (they cleared one tract to pay for planting another).

This leads perfectly to answer choice (D). The tax law provided the company with an incentive to act in a way that is contrary to the purpose of the law, while taking advantage of the tax incentives. Remember the purpose of the law was to encourage reforestation, and the lumber company acted in a way that did not lead to a net increase in forested land. In fact, for the short term (while we wait for the reforested land to grow), there's a net decrease in forested land.

(A) is too strong to be established by the information in the passage. We only know about the actions of one lumber company. This claim would require a complete assessment of most (if not all) lumber companies.
(B) is too strong to be established by the information. For the one company discussed in the stimulus the amount of forested land has remained the same, but we are not given information about other lumber companies.
(C) seems to follow from the information, but is a prediction about the future that cannot be proven.
(E) is another extrapolation. This answer choice seems to follow from the information, but again is a statement regarding the lumber industry as a whole, whereas the stimulus only provides us information about the actions of one lumber company.

Does that help clear it up?

I understand why D is correct but I incorrectly chose E during the PT. My problem was that I focused on a detail that I didn;t even know what I meant. The fact that the company in the stimulus paid for the new land by using money they had obtained from clearing anothe trac of land that it had planned to "hold in long-term reserve"
Some how I associated this with them probably replanting the new lot which would help reforestation but the trees will be young and not mature.
I know crazy assumption but I just wanted to know if anyone knew what that last sentence meant.
Thank you!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The big difference between answer choices (D) and (E) is the absolute guarantee implied by answer choice (E). Answer choice (D) doesn't actually predict that negative consequences will occur, whereas answer choice (E) does.

We don't actually know that the incentive to remove trees will be acted on. Answer choice (D) simply suggests that the incentive exists, but answer choice (E) goes further by saying that the incentive will actually have some specific consequences.

Does that make sense? I don't think your reading of the last sentence of the stimulus is that far off. I think you mean that you interpreted the stimulus to imply that the company reforested the purchased track of land, and cleared a plot that had been mature - leading to less mature trees in general. But we cannot infer that the company was necessarily going to reforest the track that it cleared to pay for the reforestation of the other plot.

[daniel]

(B) is too strong to be established by the information. For the one company discussed in the stimulus the amount of forested land has remained the same, but we are not given information about other lumber companies.

I see your point here, but was I wrong to think that (B) is actually contradicted by the passage? The final sentence of the stimulus indicates that the company cleared a larger tract of land than then one that it reforested. Thus, there has already been an effect on the amount of forested land (there's less of it). That said, it is certainly true that we don't know what other companies are doing.

[ohthatpatrick]

You're correct that for the one company mentioned, it is a net loss of forested land, so that IS an immediate effect on the amount of forested land in the region.

But, ultimately, we don't know what other companies are doing / have done, so it COULD still end up resulting in NO net change. (as insanely far-fetched as that math would be)

So not officially contradicting the passage, but contradicting what we know so far, so definitely ripe for elimination no matter what.

[marykatemoller]

The reason I ultimately chose (E) was because the stimulus detailed lumber companies and answer choice (D) speaks of companies in general. Could someone explain?

[ohthatpatrick]

The #1 thing you want to take away from this problem/question is how much safer weaker wording is on Inference questions (this also goes for Necessary Assumption and most Reading Comp questions).

(D) is saying that something can provide a motivation for companies.

Do you know how much support we need to prove a "can" statement?

One measly example.

The fact that (D) has gone into more generic terms doesn't factor into whether we like it or not. Our only standard for right/wrong is "can we prove this with only the information provided?"

Would you accept that, according to the info we know, the lumber company was motivated to take advantage of the tax incentive?

(you should)

If so, would you accept that the lumber company's actions, which resulted in a net loss of forested land in the region, were CONTRARY to the purpose of the law?

(you should)

Okay ... well then, in order to address your concern that we shifted from talking about the lumber company to "companies", we should ask ourselves ... "Is a lumber company an example of a company?"

(of course)

Well, then what part of (D) can we not prove?

We have an example of a company trying to take advantage of the tax incentive and acting in a way that's contrary to the purpose of the law.

Many students are uncomfortable with the idea that we only need ONE example to support a plural sounding claim.

For example, if I say "some of my friends are Libertarians", how many Libertarians do I need to be friends with to make that statement true?

Just one.

Meanwhile, (E) has really loaded terms like "massive decrease" and it predicts the future.

To KNOW what (E) is saying, "it WILL ultimately result in a massive decrease", we would have to be some sort of future-seeing God.

To know what (D) is saying, we only have to look at the one example they gave us.

In terms of the extrapolation from lumber companies to "companies", that's the art of how LSAT makes a correct answer look less enticing.

Say you were provided with this fact:
Larry went to the bank on Saturday.

Can you infer this?
Terrestrial mammals don't always sleep inside their stony caves for the entire weekend.

Yes!

All you need is ONE example of a terrestrial mammal who DIDN'T spend the whole weekend inside a stony cave.

Why, hello, Larry.