Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
08 Jun 2020, 12:11
Kudos
Bookmarks
varotkorn
To answer your first question: the passage defines ecoefficiency as "measures to minimize environmental impact through the reduction or elimination of waste from production processes." So yes -- "ecoefficiency" and "reducing production waste" are pretty much synonymous.
However, that doesn't mean that the rest of (C) and (E) for question 2 are saying the exact same thing. More importantly, question 2 and question 3 are different questions! Just because an answer choice is wrong for one of those questions doesn't necessarily mean that the answer choice is false or that it's wrong for the other question.
Finally, just because two statements are polar opposites doesn't mean that one is right and one is wrong. Take these opposing statements, for example:
- A) The sky is 100% filled with clouds.
B) There are no clouds in the sky.
If the sky is actually partly cloudy, then both of these statements would be wrong, even though they are opposites.
Every question and answer choice is unique, so unfortunately we just have to roll up our sleeves and carefully consider the subtle nuances of each. Let's start with choices (C) and (E) from Question 2. Remember, we're looking for something mentioned as a "possible consequence of companies’ realization of greater profits through ecoefficiency":
Quote:
The passage simply does not tell us that companies are going to use their profits (earned through ecoefficiency) to increase their economic growth through MORE ecoefficiency, so (C) is out.
Quote:
The author tells us that "there is no guarantee that increased economic growth from ecoefficiency will come in similarly ecoefficient ways." So, the passage definitely doesn't mention that ecoefficiency may encourage companies to make further innovations to reduce production waste. (E) is out as well.
Question 3 asks which answer choice is implied as a "possible consequence of a company’s adoption of innovations that increase its ecoefficiency." Let's consider choice (E):
Quote:
Here's the most relevant evidence from the passage (which may look familiar): "there is no guarantee that increased economic growth from ecoefficiency will come in similarly ecoefficient ways, since in today’s global markets, greater profits may be turned into investment capital that could easily be reinvested in old-style eco-inefficient industries."
So, does this imply that companies are unlikely to invest increased profits in new ecoefficiency measures? Nope -- "no guarantee" just means that it might happen, or it might not. "Unlikely" is a stronger term, and is not supported by the evidence in the passage.
Similarly, just because greater profits MAY be used to reinvest in old-style eco-inefficient industries does not necessarily mean that a company will not invest its increased profits in the development of new and innovative ecoefficiency measures. Again, we have no idea how likely/unlikely a company is to do this.
Quote:
Notice the use of the word "may" in choice (B). We are told that "most companies invest in ecoefficiency improvements in order to increase profits and growth." And since the ecoefficiency innovations "do NOT alter the number of products manufactured nor the waste generated from their use and discard," it's reasonable to infer that this increase in profits and growth might allow the company to increase production, which in turn might worsen environmental stress.
We can't really infer whether this consequence is LIKELY or UNLIKELY, but we can certainly infer that it MIGHT happen -- and that's exactly what's indicated in choice (B), making it a better choice than (E).
I hope that helps!
10 Jul 2020, 06:08
Kudos
Bookmarks
why are questions missing?
10 Jul 2020, 09:57
Kudos
Bookmarks
mrcentauri
Hello Dear
Questions are not missing rather you are on page number 3, Look into the screen shot below.
Attachment:
123.jpg [ 351.59 KiB | Viewed 4335 times ]
You need to go to page #1 of this thread for questions.
Thanks and regards
Sajjad
