Last visit was: 27 Apr 2024, 04:29 It is currently 27 Apr 2024, 04:29

Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Manager
Manager
Joined: 14 Feb 2022
Posts: 79
Own Kudos [?]: 741 [9]
Given Kudos: 69
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Send PM
Intern
Intern
Joined: 11 May 2021
Posts: 5
Own Kudos [?]: 2 [2]
Given Kudos: 390
Location: India
WE:Supply Chain Management (Retail)
Send PM
Intern
Intern
Joined: 05 Jan 2023
Posts: 31
Own Kudos [?]: 4 [0]
Given Kudos: 10
Send PM
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 13961
Own Kudos [?]: 32967 [1]
Given Kudos: 5780
GPA: 3.62
Send PM
Re: Atmospheric carbon dioxide (C02) has been increasing since 1700 [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
YuktiMaheshwari wrote:
Hi GMATNinja karisma Veritas

Could you please explain question 2?

Posted from my mobile device


Explanation


2. It can be inferred from the passage that Auclair's claim about carbon and the northern woodlands would be most seriously undermined if which of the following were true?

Difficulty Level: Easy

Explanation

Auclair's claim in the passage relies on the argument that the northern woodlands have acted as a carbon sink since 1920, absorbing carbon from the atmosphere and turning it into wood. To undermine this claim, you would need to find information that suggests the northern woodlands were not acting as a carbon sink during this period. Let's evaluate the options:

A. This statement is consistent with the information provided in the passage and would not undermine Auclair's claim.

B. If the rate of tree growth continued to increase throughout the twentieth century, it would support, rather than undermine, Auclair's claim about the woodlands acting as a carbon sink after 1920.

C. This statement actually strengthens Auclair's claim, as it suggests an increase in carbon absorption by the woodlands, which is consistent with his argument.

D. This statement would seriously undermine Auclair's claim because it suggests that the woodlands were not acting as a carbon sink, as they were losing more carbon through rot and fires than they were absorbing.

E. This statement, if true, is consistent with the information in the passage regarding early-century losses from fires and logging, and it does not necessarily undermine Auclair's claim about the woodlands acting as a carbon sink after 1920.

The option that would most seriously undermine Auclair's claim is D. If the total volumes of wood lost to rot or fire exceeded the increases in wood volume during the twentieth century, it would challenge his assertion that the northern woodlands acted as a carbon sink during this period.

Answer: D
Director
Director
Joined: 17 Aug 2009
Posts: 627
Own Kudos [?]: 31 [0]
Given Kudos: 21
Send PM
Atmospheric carbon dioxide (C02) has been increasing since 1700 [#permalink]
Q1 - The passage is primarily concerned

Let's see the passage structure first
    1. The passage introduces a puzzling or strange phenomenon. What phenomenon? With the increasing use of fossil fuels, the amount of CO2 should have increased and not the other way around. So where is this excess CO2 going?
    2. That's where the author introduces Allen Auclair's claim.
    3. In the 2nd passage, the author introduces the minimum condition "must be compared with the wood lost" for the claim or theory to be true and then provides the supporting evidence.
    4. Finally, the author concludes that "turning the northern forests from a carbon source into a carbon sink and storing CO2 from fossil fuel over the next fifty years." In a way supporting "Allen Auclair's claim."

A. refuting a claim about the causes of a phenomenon - opposite. The author is supporting a claim and not refuting it.

B. presenting an analysis of a common natural process - it's not "common." Opposite.

C. providing an explanation for a puzzling phenomenon - Yes. The puzzling phenomenon is "With the increasing use of fossil fuels, the amount of CO2 should have increased and not the other way around," and what is the explanation? "Allen Auclair's claim or theory."

D. evaluating the methodology used in a recent study - "evaluate" means discussing the strengths and weaknesses and then coming to a conclusion. There is no critique here. Above all the passage doesn't talk about any "methodology." The passage only shares an explanation of the puzzling phenomena and doesn't talk about the methods he measured, whether these methods were good or bad, or whether some other methods could be better.

E. contrasting two explanations of an unexpected phenomenon - there is only one explanation.
GMAT Club Bot
Atmospheric carbon dioxide (C02) has been increasing since 1700 [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6923 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
GRE Forum Moderator
13961 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne