Economist: Tropicorp, which constantly seeks profitable investment opportunities, has been buying and clearing sections of tropical forest for cattle ranching, although pastures newly created there become useless for grazing after just a few years. The company has not gone into rubber tapping, even though greater profits can be made from rubber tapping, which leaves the forest intact. Thus, some environmentalists argue that <b> Tropicorp's actions do not serve even its own economic interest. </b> However, the initial investment required for a successful rubber-tapping operation is larger than that needed for a cattle ranch; there is a shortage of workers employable in rubber-tapping operations; and taxes are higher on profits from rubber tapping than on profits from cattle ranching. Consequently, <b> the environmentalists' conclusion is probably wrong. </b> In the economist's argument, the two <b> boldface </b> portions play which of the following roles? ["The first states the conclusion of the economists' argument: the second supports that conclusion.", "The first supports the conclusion of the economists' argument, the second calls that conclusion into question.", "Each supports the conclusion of the economist's argument.", "The first states the conclusion of the environmentalists' argument; the second states the conclusion of the economist's argument"]