Certain oil companies have been called poor corporate citizens because they have opposed government action to limit global warming by undermining scientific research that characterizes the issue as severe. However, these same oil companies have also invested millions of dollars in scientific research to address the long term effects of climate change.
Which of the following best explains the apparent discrepancy in the situation described above?
A.) The oil companies only recently began investing in scientific research to address climate change issues.
B.) The research dollars invested by the oil companies are specifically earmarked for developing practical technologies that might be used to combat global warming.
C.) The government action opposed by the oil companies would negatively impact their profits.
D.) The scientific research that characterizes global warming as a severe problem has not been definitively proven.
E.) The oil companies don't believe that any scientific research related to climate change will ultimately serve their interests.
I can't for the life of me figure out how the OA makes any sense - just want to see if anyone else will get it.
A) MAYBE. The companies might have started investing due to the criticism.
B) MAYBE. In a way if they are doing "just enough" to not make the problem as severe so they can show people that due to their "advancement" the problem is not that severe
C) irrelevant. does not explain the discrepancy
D) prob not. I dont think they are undermining the research of others if they are doing similar research?
E) no. what's the point of them doing research if they dont believe it?
I think B. If the oil companies are "countering" claims made by researches by researching solutions then the overall problem will be less severe. In a way it is like putting simple patches on a sinking boat - it will make it sink much slower and whenever there is another hole it will be patched up but eventually the patches will not hold for long.
If you like my answers please +1 kudos!