Environmental activists in Santilia are calling for a stop to deforest

First, of all try to recognize what is the discrepancy between the 2 claims. Activists are saying, stop deforestation since it's leading to an increase in the global GHG emissions and deforestation accounts for half of Santilia's GHG emissions. But, on the other hand, Govt officials are saying that Santilia contributes to less than 1% of
global greenhouse gas emissions so let the situation be as it is.

Second, ask a question to yourself what both these guys are missing in their statements. These guys are simply quoting local numbers and relating them back to global numbers without referring to the originality of Santillia.
Obviously, for both of them argument would have made more sense, instead of being contradictory, if these guys would have stated that "Santilia is one of the smallest nations in the tropics, and a substantial percentage of its territory was once covered by rainforest". This would have resolved the differences of these 2 parties and made their claims more sensible.

Give kudos if you think this reasoning helped you.

Environmental activists in Santilia are calling for a stop to deforestation, pointing out that deforestation in the tropics is responsible for 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Deforestation accounts for half of Santilia's greenhouse gas emissions. However, government officials counter that Santilia contributes to less than 1% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Discrepancy- 1. Deforestation- 18% of global green gases.
2. Deforestation- 50% of SANTILLA GG emissions
3. Santilla- extremely small percent of GG is from santilla

Discrepancy- deforestation which accounts for 50% santilla'S GG emissions. We would expect that SANTILLA'S emission would account for atleast a considerable amount of GG emissions.
BUT only 1% of GG emissions is from SANTILLA.

Framework- find an answer choice which would explain us the scenario without contradicting either.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain the discrepancy between the claims of environmental activists and government officials in Santilia?


(A) Compared to other tropical countries, emissions in Santilia have less of an impact on the global climate.- WRONG-OOS- this can be an inference (though a **** one). It does not explain the discrepancy. Impact of something is not our concern

(B) Many factories that emitted industrial pollutants have recently relocated from Santilia to neighboring countries.- WRONG- out of context- this may look like a plausible answer becuase we are given that GG emissions from SANTILLA account for less than 1% . But remember we do not know anything about the total emissions of SANTILLA. What if the factories' emissions were a very small part of SANTILLA emissions?

(C) Activists in Santilia have begun re-planting forests covering approximately 10 percent of land once covered by rainforest in the country. WRONG- OOS- we are concerned about the percent emissions not what activists did

(D) Santilia is one of the smallest nations in the tropics, and a substantial percentage of its territory was once covered by rainforest.
CORRECT- if SANTILLA is the smallest of all nations then surely we can infer that it's emissions might also be considerably ignorable.

(E) Activists in Santilia have much more political influence in their country than do activists in other tropical countries.- WRONG- OOS- political influence ! Don't care

Posted from my mobile device

Give kudos for repeating the information given in the question/options ??

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.