Scientists are discussing ways to remove excess carbon dioxide from

Clearly B.

A: so? scientists dont have to put the farms in these places. Irrelevant
C: irrelevant, peoples desire for this type of fuel is out of scope for this passage.
D: this may seem somewhat valid. The plants wont absorb all the CO2. But they will absorb a lot. The scientists never state that the farms MUST abosrb all the CO2.
E: irrelevant.

[quote="gregspirited"]Scientists are discussing ways to remove excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by increasing the amount that is absorbed by plant life. One plan to accomplish this is to establish giant floating seaweed farms in the oceans. When the seaweed plants die, they will be disposed of by being burned for fuel.

Which of the following, if true, would indicate the most serious weakness in the plan above?

A. Some areas of ocean in the Southern Hemisphere do not contain sufficient nutrients to support large seaweed farms.
B. When a seaweed plant is burned, it releases an amount of carbon dioxide comparable to the amount it has absorbed in its lifetime.
C. Even if seaweed farms prove effective, some people will be reluctant to switch to this new fuel.
D. Each year about seven billion tons of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere but only about five billion tons are absorbed by plant life.
E. Seaweed farms would make more money by farming seaweed to sell as nutritional supplements than by farming seaweed to sell as fuel.

if the amount released equals the amount absorbed, then the balance would be the same. So B

Scientists are discussing ways to remove excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by increasing the amount that is absorbed by plant life. One plan to accomplish this is to establish giant floating seaweed farms in the oceans. When the seaweed plants die, they will be disposed of by being burned for fuel.

Which of the following, if true, would indicate the most serious weakness in the plan above?
A. Some areas of ocean in the Southern Hemisphere do not contain sufficient nutrients to support large seaweed farms.
B. When a seaweed plant is burned, it releases an amount of carbon dioxide comparable to the amount it has absorbed in its lifetime.
C. Even if seaweed farms prove effective, some people will be reluctant to switch to this new fuel.
D. Each year about seven billion tons of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere but only about five billion tons are absorbed by plant life.
E. Seaweed farms would make more money by farming seaweed to sell as nutritional supplements than by farming seaweed to sell as fuel.

Hello hermit84:

If I may say you went for B? I did the same, but then I realized why E is a better choice.
Here we go:

QS:
- increased amount of CO2 in atmosphere
- way to reduce is TO ESTABLISH (grow) seaweed plants

I missed the word "to establish"...the author is stating that growing seaweed plants will reduce CO2. BUT, what if farmers who grow the seaweed plants start to cut the seaweed during the growth for medicinal purpose (more money...greedy farmers ). THEN, neither will the seaweed be used for absorbing CO2 nor available later (after seaweeds die) for fuel....
The answer to this question finds the logical flaw in the QS.
So, it is E.....

B is a trap answer and C is out of scope (for me).

HTH. If anyone has a better explanation..please definitely provide

I also pick B in my first attempt, but after reading the explanation, E is a better choice. If the farmers make more money by using the seaweed as supplement, then the seaweed will get harvest before it is burned for fuel.
What is the source of the question?

Posted from GMAT ToolKit

Where did this question come from? B is the correct answer, without any doubt whatsoever.

A "weakness" in "the plan" means something that will prevent the plan from achieving its objective, EVEN IF all the other information given in the question is true. The objective of the plan (the "this" which the plan is meant to "accomplish") is to "remove excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by increasing the amount that is absorbed by plant life". So a "weakness" will be a piece of information that, if it is true, will make it possible or likely that the plan will NOT remove that excess carbon dioxide. (B) clearly has this effect.

(E) does not have this effect at all. If the plan happens but (E) is true, there are still seaweed farms, and the farms will still remove any carbon dioxide that they would remove from the air in the absence of (E). Then there is no information at all about whether selling them as nutritional supplements does anything to increase or decrease carbon dioxide, so it does not affect the objective of the plan.

The official answer has to be a typo. Sometimes there is not enough care taken when creating these practice questions. Even the GMAC itself is not immune: The 11th edition of the Official Guide (orange cover) had an infamous number line question with two correct answers.

Hey,

I am not very sure about the source, as I found this question in one of the verbal tests I have from the collection of tests. Its probably scoretop .

Anyhow even I think the OA given is not correct and B is most suitable option here, applying the same reasoning as you did.

Thanks

Most definitely B – think E is a mistake.

E makes zero sense: "Seaweed farms would make more money by farming seaweed to sell as nutritional supplements than by farming seaweed to sell as fuel."

The question here is, so what? Argument is that seaweed reduces carbon dioxide while it is living. Whether it is used as fuel or nutritional supplement is irrelevant, unless we have more information about the impact of this usage (which B provides).

I agree with the other posters. B is clearly the answer here.

The question stem specifically states -which of the following would indicate a weakness in THE PLAN above

The plan is to establish giant seaweed beds that will then be burned as fossil fuels and the answer choice has to be within that scope so if burning the seaweed beds results in the release of a comparable amount of co2 then that weakens THE PLAN to reduce co2 emissions by establishing sea beds.

Answer choice E requires an assumption to be made that selling the seaweed plants as nutritional supplements would prevent them from being harvested and is outside the scope.

conclusion: plan will reduce carbon dioxide
Pre-thinking: Weaken option will say that the plan will not reduce carbon dioxde.

Scanning the AOs we can see that B does this (weaken).

In CR, one should use Reasoning skills as the primary skill and Process of Elimination (POE) as a secondary skill. --> saves valuable time on GMAT.

straight (B)
the purpose of the new method not served

B is winner here. After burning See weeds it will contribute the same amount of CO2 in atmosphere and hence effect will be nullified.

I agree with B, can anyone analysis the Question and explain whether B or E is the right answer? Thanks in advance.

B is the only correct answer here as E doesn't have any effect on the plan and its consequences at all.

Here is the link that's a more credible source for explanation for B as answer.

https://www.manhattangmat.com/blog/

PLAN- Remove excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by establishing giant floating seaweed farms in the oceans. When the seaweed plants die, they will be disposed of by being burned for fuel.
contenders- b and e.......

B. When a seaweed plant is burned, it releases an amount of carbon dioxide comparable to the amount it has absorbed in its lifetime....CORRECT....the PLAN IS FLAWED AS THE GOOD WORK DONE BY THE PLANTS WILL BE SHORTLY UNDONE... AND THUS THE carbon dioxide from the atmosphere WILL REMAIN " AS IS "...

E. Seaweed farms would make more money by farming seaweed to sell as nutritional supplements than by farming seaweed to sell as fuel. ...INCORRECT....IF IT IS USED AS A NUITRIENT IT WILL BE PREODUCED MORE AND WILL KEEP REDUCING carbon dioxide from the atmosphere... UNLIKE B , IT WONT KEEP ADDING carbon dioxide IN the atmosphere

Scientists are discussing ways to remove excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by increasing the amount that is absorbed by plant life. One plan to accomplish this is to establish giant floating seaweed farms in the oceans. When the seaweed plants die, they will be disposed of by being burned for fuel.

Which of the following, if true, would indicate the most serious weakness in the plan above?

A. Some areas of ocean in the Southern Hemisphere do not contain sufficient nutrients to support large seaweed farms.

B. When a seaweed plant is burned, it releases an amount of carbon dioxide comparable to the amount it has absorbed in its lifetime.

C. Even if seaweed farms prove effective, some people will be reluctant to switch to this new fuel.

D. Each year about seven billion tons of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere but only about five billion tons are absorbed by plant life.

E. Seaweed farms would make more money by farming seaweed to sell as nutritional supplements than by farming seaweed to sell as fuel.

My pick is option A.

Please provide the OA.