PrepTest 121

Incorrect. This answer is too strong. While it does appear to have failed in this case, it might have succeeded in many others, with the balance making it a success.

Incorrect. In the one example, it decreased the amount of forested land in the region. We don't know if this situation is representative, but there is at least evidence that the amount of forested land might change.

Incorrect. The example of a single company isn't enough to make a prediction about what all lumber companies will eventually do. Additionally, the example features a decrease in the amount of forested land, not a situation where about "as much land" is forested as is deforested.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Must Be True

Stimulus Summary:
New law's goal - Encourage reforestation
Approach - Tax incentives for lumber companies to reforest land

One lumber company - Bought land to reforest by clearing a larger plot of land it wasn't planning to clear ("planned to hold in long-term reserve").

Answer Anticipation:
This stimulus establishes a goal with an approach—encourage reforestation through tax incentives.

It then raises a single example where a company purchased a lot of land to reforest, but it got the money to do so by deforesting a larger plot of land. Since the goal was to get more trees, this company's actions ran counter to the goal of the legislation.

However, it's important to note that this is a single example—there's no indication that it's a representative example. As such, we can look for answers that talk about the new law resulting in actions that run counter to its goals, but we need to make sure we don't pick an answer that's too strong. Since there's just this single example, we should limit ourselves to answers about the law "sometimes" failing to achieve its goals, or that it "can" incentivize behavior it's trying to discourage.

Answer Explanation:
This answer is nice a weak ("can"), which can be supported by a single example. And the example in the stimulus does show that the new law can provide a company to act contrary to its goals—the law was designed to result in reforestation, but the company used its incentives to deforest a region. This answer is therefore correct.

Key Takeaway:
When a Must Be True question features a single example or situation, and it doesn't note that it's representative, then the correct answer will be on the weaker end of the spectrum. One example shows that something can/might/sometimes happens, not that it likely/usually/most of the time happens, and definitely not that it will/always happens.

Incorrect. As with several other answers, this is way too strong. A single example can't support such a strong prediction about what will ultimately happen with the lumber industry and forested areas overall.