What significant point is made about countries and deforestation?

• A. All countries have equal deforestation levels.
• B. Only developed nations affect deforestation through beef consumption.
• C. Some countries are responsible for greater deforestation than others, requiring them to replace more than 20% of their beef consumption with mycoprotein for significant environmental impact.
• D. Replacing beef with mycoprotein has no environmental benefit for any country.

Answer: (C)

The idea being tested is that responsibility for deforestation is not spread evenly across countries, and the scale of change needed depends on which countries are driving forest loss. In many cases, a relatively small number of countries account for a large share of deforestation because of expansive beef production and related land use. When those high-impact countries reduce demand for beef by switching part of it to a less land-intensive protein like mycoprotein, the environmental payoff is much larger than a similar change in countries with smaller deforestation footprints.

That’s why the statement emphasizes replacing more than a certain portion of beef in those major players to achieve a meaningful impact. It acknowledges that cutting beef consumption in the biggest deforesting nations can substantially lessen land clearing and associated emissions, making the substitution with mycoprotein a powerful leverage point.

Other options miss this nuance. Dismissing the uneven distribution of deforestation ignores where action will matter most. Claiming that only developed nations drive the issue overlooks the significant roles of many developing countries. Saying there’s no environmental benefit to replacing beef ignores that mycoprotein generally requires less land and leads to fewer deforestation pressures.