The government of Nation X makes policy decisions intended to advance the public interest, such as policy decisions aiming to...
GMAT Data Sufficiency : (DS) Questions
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?
- Extensive clearcutting of forests is permitted in Nation X because it provides immediate economic gains by enabling businesses such as farming and lumbering to flourish and provide employment.
- Extensive clearcutting of forests is permitted in Nation X even though it reduces forests' absorption of carbon dioxide, and this indirectly contributes to global warming, resulting in adverse climate changes that are certain to be very costly for Nation X to manage.
Understanding the Question
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?
Given Information
- Nation X makes policy decisions to advance public interest
- Public interest includes: employment, economic flourishing, and environmental protection
- Policy decisions can involve trade-offs (giving up one valued outcome for another)
What We Need to Determine
This is a yes/no question. To answer "yes," we need to show that the clearcutting policy:
- Provides at least one valued outcome (employment, economic flourishing, or environmental protection)
- Sacrifices at least one other valued outcome
The phrase "at the expense of" is crucial here - it means we need evidence of both gain AND loss of valued outcomes.
Analyzing Statement 1
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.
What Statement 1 Tells Us
- The policy provides economic flourishing (businesses flourish) ✓
- The policy provides employment ✓
What We Still Don't Know
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.
Analyzing Statement 2
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.
What Statement 2 Provides
- The policy harms environmental protection (contributes to global warming) ✓
- The policy will lead to future economic costs ✓
What We Still Don't Know
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).
Combining Statements
Now let's see what we learn when we use both statements together:
Combined Information
From Statement 1:
- The policy PROVIDES economic flourishing and employment (valued outcomes) ✓
From Statement 2:
- The policy SACRIFICES environmental protection (another valued outcome) ✓
Why Together They Are Sufficient
Together, the statements give us the complete picture we need:
- Statement 1 provides the "gains" side of the trade-off
- Statement 2 provides the "losses" side of the trade-off
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.
The Answer: C
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."
Key Insight
This is a classic GMAT pattern where:
- One statement tells us about benefits
- Another statement tells us about costs
- We need both to establish that a trade-off exists