Developed countries around the world have pledged to reduce global car

Question

Developed countries around the world have pledged to reduce global carbon emissions to half their 1990 levels by 2050. Taking into account these countries' plans for emissions reduction, countries in the developing world would need to cut emissions by 23%. However, this goal will translate into a much greater per-capita requirement on people in the developing world. This is because their populations are still growing, increasing the energy and resources needed in coming years. 
 
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) Industrial plants are one of the prime targets for emissions reductions, and most global industrial production takes place in developed nations.

(B) On a per-capita basis, emissions from countries in the developing world are less than one-tenth those from developed countries.

(C) A handful of developing nations committed to emissions reduction targets equal or greater than those of developed nations.

(D) In developing nations, emissions levels are more heavily dependent on the activities of a small ruling class.

(E) By 2050, many countries in the developing world are expected to have undergone drastic economic transformation such that they will resemble more closely developed nations than developing ones.

Source:  GMAT Hacks - 071613

avohden · Accepted Answer

Official Explanation

Answer: B  This is a strengthen question. It is similar, however, to an explanation, as the argument contains an 
apparent paradox. Developed countries will cut emissions by 50%, developing countries by 23%, but the 23% cuts 
will be more demanding on a per-capita basis. The evidence given is that developing countries will need more 
resources to continue growing. Presumably, developed nations will not need their resource consumption to 
grow at the same rate. Consider each choice:

(A) This choice describes one target of emissions cuts, but in developed nations. It doesn't explain why developing
nations will be hit harder. (B) This is correct. If emissions in developing countries start at so low a point, they 
would need to grow very rapidly to get anywhere close to the level of developed nations. As the resource 
demands in those countries grow, any cut at all--let alone 23%--in emissions would be a great burden. (C) This choice distinguishes some developing nations from other developing nations. The contrast we're concerned with is 
developing vs. developed nations. (D) This may be true, but it doesn't tell us why emissions cuts would be so much
more harmful. If anything, it may mean the cuts would be less harmful, as they would disproportionately touch the 
ruling class. (E) This is something that is partly assumed by the argument, but without additional information 
(in the form of details regarding emissions levels, as in (B)) it doesn't strengthen the argument.

avohden · Answer

Hey there shriramvelamuri – I didn’t write the question or the answer so the following is IMHO.

According to Mike McGarry at Magoosh there are 4 ways to strengthen a question.
A. Strengthen the premises: either provide direct support to one of the premises of the argument, or add new premises that independently support the conclusion
B. Strengthen the assumption: directly affirm the truth of an assumption of the argument, or provide evidence or support for an assumption.
C. Strengthen the conclusion: provide some kind of alternate support of, direct measurement of, or independent confirmation of the conclusion
D. Weaken an objection: use any of the weakening techniques on an implicit or explicit objection to the argument.

I think B is correct because it strengthens an assumption. I believe the conclusion is the following sentence: “However, this goal will translate into a much greater per-capita requirement on people in the developing world.”

Although the conclusion sentence does begin with a conclusion indicator word such as therefore, so, or thus it summarizes the conclusion of the argument. The word “however” sounds like it’s trying to confuse the reader.

So when I read the conclusion without the however I am thinking what is being assumed to make that conclusion. Please note that I think the use of “per-capita” is also trying to confuse you. You can substitute “percentage decline” instead.

While I read the question certain things come to mind in terms of assumptions. I’m just brainstorming right now.

Developed countries probably have more total emissions than developing countries. Developed countries have more infrastructure and energy requirements which are consistent with a higher standard of living. 
Developed countries have a lower population growth than developing countries. Think Western Europe and Japan where their populations are actually declining. 
Using these assumptions as I look at the questions I see that answer B restates my first sentence. It affirms my assumption and actually provided evidence. “Developed countries probably have more total emissions than developing countries”. Personally I can’t quantify the amount but answer B did for me.

I try and quantification of the amount of emissions output.

Assume emissions from developed countries is 1,000,000 and emissions from developing is 100,000. We know that developed countries are going to cut emissions but 50% and developing countries by 23%. But we are assuming that the population in developing countries is growing faster than developed countries. As countries develop their energy requirements and emissions is greater than its population growth.

Assume the following: Emissions 100,000 and population 100,000 at 2010. Population growth 10% and emissions growth 15% for the next 40 years. Let’s round 23% to 25%, therefore emissions will be cut to 75,000 by 2050. But assuming emissions growth, the emissions output will be approx. 202,000. So the actual emissions reduction is 63% not 23%.

shriramvelamuri · Answer

HI Avohden, I am still not clear why the answer is B. Please could you help me.

I chose the answer C.

HardWorkBeatsAll · Answer

Answer: (B)

A - out of scope
B - say developed countries use energy units 100 per capita. They will reduce it to 50. If developing countries use 1/10th, i.e. 10 units per capita and cut it to ~8 (23% reduction), that means the'll still be using far less than developed countries' per capita use. This is a greater penalty. STRENGTHENS.
C - A handful might have decided to increase commitment, but it may or may not have per capita impact overall, depending on their relative size of commitment. insufficient data to strengthen/weaken.
D - tempting. logically, this is true, but does it have any bearing on the impact from reductions? either way, their per-capita consumption is going down. this fact of developing into developed nations is incidental but that couldn't be the main reason to say that impact on them would be greater. if developing countries turn to developed ones, and increase per-capita use by 1000%, say, the impact is less. but if they stay at current levels, impact is more.

Note that here, we are talking about impact in REAL terms, and not in percentage terms.

pkm9995 · Answer

I feel the something not so good about B.The question is talking

let us say population of developing countries in 1990 =100
Emission in 1990=50
Per-capita requirement=50/100= 0.5

population of developing countries in 2050 =200
Emission in 1990=100
Per-capita requirement=100/200= 0.5

Per-capita requirement is a function of population and total emission.If B has to be correct then we have to assume rate of growth of population is less than that of rate of carbon emission.

cledgard · Answer

" this goal will translate into a much greater per-capita requirement on people in the developing world"

than what?  than on people from developed countries? or than 23% ?

We do not know whether the population in developed countries is still growing.

Anyway, the per-capita reduction requirement on people in the developed world would be 50% or more, and the per-capita reduction requirement on people in the developing world would be more than 23%. If  the comparison is between developed countries and developing countries  it seems that the per- capita requirement is greater in the developed countries. In addition, we do know the actual carbon emissions emitted by either group. Therefore,  the argument would be flawed .

If the comparison is between the 23% estimate and the actual requirements, then the argument is valid -
" this goal will translate into a much greater per-capita requirement on people in the developing world"- but  none of the answers would have any effect on the conclusion .

Aketa · Answer

hello experts,

could you please explain why b is right and c is wrong ?

goforgmat · Answer

Developed countries around the world have pledged to reduce global carbon emissions to half their 1990 levels by 2050. Taking into account these countries' plans for emissions reduction, countries in the developing world would need to cut emissions by 23%. However, this goal will translate into a much greater per-capita requirement on people in the developing world. This is because their populations are still growing, increasing the energy and resources needed in coming years.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) Industrial plants are one of the prime targets for emissions reductions, and most global industrial production takes place in developed nations.

(B) On a per-capita basis, emissions from countries in the developing world are less than one-tenth those from developed countries.

(C) A handful of developing nations committed to emissions reduction targets equal or greater than those of developed nations.

(D) In developing nations, emissions levels are more heavily dependent on the activities of a small ruling class.

(E) By 2050, many countries in the developing world are expected to have undergone drastic economic transformation such that they will resemble more closely developed nations than developing ones.

Source: GMAT Hacks - 071613

Show Answer

Official Answer

B

chesstitans · Answer

I think C is incorrect because

1/ it contradicts with the argument. Clearly, developing countries will cut emissions by 23%, but C says some developing countries will targets greater than developed countries. 
2/ targets equal of greater than those of developed countries is not similar to "per capita" targets

redskull1 · Answer

I did not even understand this question...

surya.nair · Answer

There is a hidden assumption here, that the population of developing world is significantly lesser than on developed nations.
Read the assumption with the statement  However, this goal will translate into a much greater per-capita requirement on people in the developing world . Without this assumption we won't be able to come to that right answer.

Only then it would rightfully mean that 23% is a greater burden on the people of developing world and 50% not on developed nations. That will lead to the right thinking, and eventually to option B

rish_dutton · Answer

Poorly written question. What confuses me is that the wording that suggests that developed countries are not just trying to lower their own emissions but also "global emissions" to 50% of "developed countries' " current level. That means they still MAY have to reduce THEIR OWN emissions by greater than or less 50% if the rest of the world adjusts accordingly. Unclear setup.

Anjummm1 · Answer

difficult question, but this explanation helps. Thank you!

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

Developed countries around the world have pledged to reduce global car

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Developed countries around the world have pledged to reduce global car

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards