Loading...
The government of Nation X makes policy decisions intended to advance the public interest, such as policy decisions aiming to promote employment, economic flourishing, and environmental protection. A policy decision can involve a significant trade-off, i.e., it can entail foreseeably giving up part or all of one valued outcome in the pursuit of another valued outcome. Does a policy decision by Nation X to permit extensive clearcutting of forests provide a valued outcome at the expense of another valued outcome?
Let's break down what we're being asked: Does Nation X's policy to permit extensive clearcutting provide a valued outcome at the expense of another valued outcome?
This is a yes/no question. To answer "yes," we need to show that the clearcutting policy:
The phrase "at the expense of" is crucial here - it means we need evidence of both gain AND loss of valued outcomes.
Statement 1 tells us: Extensive clearcutting is permitted because it provides immediate economic gains by enabling businesses like farming and lumbering to flourish and provide employment.
Statement 1 only tells us about the benefits. It doesn't mention whether any valued outcome is sacrificed. We know the policy provides valued outcomes, but we don't know if it comes "at the expense of" another valued outcome.
Think of it this way: We have half the equation - we know about gains, but not about losses.
Since we can't determine if there's a trade-off, Statement 1 alone is NOT sufficient.
[STOP - Not Sufficient!] This eliminates choices A and D.
Now let's forget Statement 1 completely and analyze Statement 2 independently.
Statement 2 tells us: Clearcutting is permitted even though it reduces forests' CO2 absorption, contributes to global warming, and will result in costly climate changes for Nation X.
Statement 2 only tells us about the negative consequences. It doesn't tell us whether the policy provides any valued outcomes. We know it causes harm to the environment, but we don't know what benefits (if any) justify permitting it.
Again, we have only half the equation - this time we know about losses, but not about gains.
Without knowing if the policy provides any valued outcomes, we can't answer whether it provides outcomes "at the expense of" others. Statement 2 alone is NOT sufficient.
[STOP - Not Sufficient!] This eliminates choice B (and confirms elimination of D).
Now let's see what we learn when we use both statements together:
From Statement 1:
From Statement 2:
Together, the statements give us the complete picture we need:
This is exactly what we need to answer "yes" to the question - the policy does provide valued outcomes (economic gains and employment) at the expense of another valued outcome (environmental protection).
The statements together are sufficient.
[STOP - Sufficient!] This eliminates choice E.
Both statements together provide the complete trade-off picture we need, but neither alone tells us about both the benefits AND the costs. Each statement provides exactly half of what we need to know.
Answer Choice C: "Both statements together are sufficient, but neither statement alone is sufficient."
This is a classic GMAT pattern where: