Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the ecological economists' conclusion regarding the forest preservation strategy?

Ecological

Question

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the ecological economists' conclusion regarding the forest preservation strategy?

Ecological economists argue that granting legal timber-harvesting concessions to indigenous Amazonian communities will halt deforestation more effectively than establishing strictly preserved national parks. Their rationale is that local communities with direct economic stakes in sustainable rubber tapping and selective logging will actively police concessions against illegal cattle ranchers and wildcat miners, whereas underfunded state forestry rangers are incapable of patrolling vast park boundaries.

Accepted Answer

Commercial timber syndicates frequently offer indigenous community councils lump-sum cash buyouts that dwarf decades of projected revenue from sustainable harvesting.

Answer

State forestry rangers in adjacent regions recently received upgraded satellite surveillance technology.

Answer

Some indigenous communities maintain traditional hunting practices that slightly reduce populations of canopy birds.

Answer

Ecotourism generates higher per-hectare revenues in national parks than in timber concessions.

Answer

Several neighboring nations have established joint conservation corridors across international borders.

Practice More GRE RC: Argument Analysis & Paradox Questions

More RC: Argument Analysis & Paradox Questions in GRE

Practice More GRE RC: Argument Analysis & Paradox Questions

More RC: Argument Analysis & Paradox Questions in GRE