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.
May 0608:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
In Episode 3 of our GMAT Ninja Critical Reasoning series, we tackle Discrepancy, Paradox, and Explain an Oddity questions. You know the feeling: the passage gives you two facts that seem completely contradictory....- May 08
08:00 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Join the special YouTube live-stream for selecting the winners of GMAT Club MBA Scholarships sponsored by Juno live. Watch who gets these coveted MBA scholarships offered by GMAT Club and Juno.
04 Aug 2020, 16:31
Kudos
Bookmarks
Arevik
Hello, Arevik. PowerScore is a test prep company that has released a series of GMAT™ verbal prep books, one for each question category: Critical Reasoning (CR), Reading Comprehension (RC), and Sentence Correction (SC). All three titles include the word bible at the end. The PowerScore CR Bible, or simply CR Bible, is the shorthand way of referring to the corresponding product. It is by far the most referenced guide of the three by members of this site. The general consensus seems to be that it is an excellent guide for non-native English speakers, who may get more from it than the competing product by Manhattan Prep (often MGMAT on this forum), which is also highly regarded. You can read more about all three guides through the PowerScore website, here, or the CR Bible exclusively, here. (You might be able to save some money buying from a third-party seller.)
If you have further questions, do not hesitate to ask. Good luck with your studies.
- Andrew
kagrawal16
Joined: 31 Jul 2018
Last visit: 01 Dec 2022
Posts: 90
Given Kudos: 76
Location: India
Schools: ISB '23 (S) IIMA PGPX'23
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
GPA: 3
Updated on: 26 Dec 2020, 21:58
Originally posted by kagrawal16 on 13 Nov 2020, 08:14.
Last edited by kagrawal16 on 26 Dec 2020, 21:58, edited 1 time in total.
Last edited by kagrawal16 on 26 Dec 2020, 21:58, edited 1 time in total.
Kudos
Bookmarks
Economist: Even with energy conservation efforts, current technologies cannot support both a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and an expanding global economy. Attempts to restrain emissions without new technology will stifle economic growth. Therefore, increases in governmental spending on research into energy technology will be necessary if we wish to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth.
Which of the following is an assumption the economist's argument requires?
Premise
If no New Tech
Reduced emissions will not lead to economic growth.
In other words
For Reduced emissions to lead to economic growth, New technology is necessary.
RE->EG->NT
Conclusion
IS=>Increases in spending
RE->EG->IS
Assumption
link New Technology with Increase in Spending.
NT->IS
Complete Chain
Reduced emissions->economic growth->New Technology->Increases in spending for research
RE->EG->NT->IS
A) If research into energy technology does not lead to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, then economic growth will be stifled.
Choice A is a case of bad linkages.
This choice connects research with reduced emissions ie.
Negation of choice A.
if research doesn't lead to reduced CO2, the economic growth will NOT be stifled.
My conclusion "has nothing like research". Therefore
Conclusion still holds Reduced emissions->economic growth->New Technology
B) Increased governmental spending on research into energy technology will be more likely to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling growth than will nongovernmental spending.
Choice B
IF a necessary condition (Increases in spending) is met, the sufficient condition (reduced emissions) becomes more likely. It is not guaranteed as there may be other requirements but since 1 out of those requirements has been met, chances of CO2 reduction increase. (1)
IF a necessary condition is not met (non-governmental spending) the chances of sufficient condition are 0. (2)
Choice B presents this comparison between (1) and (2). 1 has to be more than 2.
Negation will make the necessary condition unnecessary and break the conclusion.
C) An expanding global economy may require at least some governmental spending on research into energy technology.
Choice C would be correct if
An expanding global economy WILL require at least some governmental spending on research into energy technology.
BY using MAY require it takes governmental spending as unnecessary contradictory to our chain.
Eliminate
NEGATION OF CHOICE C
An expanding global economy may require NO governmental spending on research into energy technology.
This hurts the conclusion by saying that there is a chance that the economy doesn't require governmental spending.
BUT the original choice is ABSOLUTELY required and not MAY required. Therefore, incorrect IMO.
An expanding global economy MAY require at least some governmental spending on research into energy technology.
D) Attempts to restrain carbon dioxide emissions without new technology could ultimately cost more than the failure to reduce those emissions would cost.
Cost is of no relevance in the argument.
E) Restraining carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth would require both new energy technology and energy conservation efforts.
We know CURRENT tech + energy conservation could not support both growth and reduced emission.
No such indication has been made for New Tech.
Which of the following is an assumption the economist's argument requires?
Premise
If no New Tech
Reduced emissions will not lead to economic growth.
In other words
For Reduced emissions to lead to economic growth, New technology is necessary.
RE->EG->NT
Conclusion
IS=>Increases in spending
RE->EG->IS
Assumption
link New Technology with Increase in Spending.
NT->IS
Complete Chain
Reduced emissions->economic growth->New Technology->Increases in spending for research
RE->EG->NT->IS
A) If research into energy technology does not lead to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, then economic growth will be stifled.
Choice A is a case of bad linkages.
This choice connects research with reduced emissions ie.
Negation of choice A.
if research doesn't lead to reduced CO2, the economic growth will NOT be stifled.
My conclusion "has nothing like research". Therefore
Conclusion still holds Reduced emissions->economic growth->New Technology
B) Increased governmental spending on research into energy technology will be more likely to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling growth than will nongovernmental spending.
Choice B
IF a necessary condition (Increases in spending) is met, the sufficient condition (reduced emissions) becomes more likely. It is not guaranteed as there may be other requirements but since 1 out of those requirements has been met, chances of CO2 reduction increase. (1)
IF a necessary condition is not met (non-governmental spending) the chances of sufficient condition are 0. (2)
Choice B presents this comparison between (1) and (2). 1 has to be more than 2.
Negation will make the necessary condition unnecessary and break the conclusion.
C) An expanding global economy may require at least some governmental spending on research into energy technology.
Choice C would be correct if
An expanding global economy WILL require at least some governmental spending on research into energy technology.
BY using MAY require it takes governmental spending as unnecessary contradictory to our chain.
Eliminate
NEGATION OF CHOICE C
An expanding global economy may require NO governmental spending on research into energy technology.
This hurts the conclusion by saying that there is a chance that the economy doesn't require governmental spending.
BUT the original choice is ABSOLUTELY required and not MAY required. Therefore, incorrect IMO.
An expanding global economy MAY require at least some governmental spending on research into energy technology.
D) Attempts to restrain carbon dioxide emissions without new technology could ultimately cost more than the failure to reduce those emissions would cost.
Cost is of no relevance in the argument.
E) Restraining carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth would require both new energy technology and energy conservation efforts.
We know CURRENT tech + energy conservation could not support both growth and reduced emission.
No such indication has been made for New Tech.
15 Nov 2020, 21:46
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi AndrewN sir Veritas ma'm
A couple of questions:
1. For B: is comparison between :
Increased Govt spending vs non-government spending;
Or
increased Govt spending vs increased non-government spending.
2. Increased government spending as compared to non-government spending – does it matter? Increased means atleast they already have some spending , so increase or comparison should not affect as much as argument says it is definitely require.? Kind of lost
3. What if C option: An expanding global economy require at least some governmental spending on research into energy technology.
Shall I reject this option only because of “may”? May means it can or can’t happen . But argument says govt spending is must, so this option doesn’t fulfill the gap?
Alternatively as u explained: may or may not won’t make much difference with negate technique. So conclusion remains unaffected , hence this option is not valid as correct answer.
please suggest.
Thanks!
A couple of questions:
1. For B: is comparison between :
Increased Govt spending vs non-government spending;
Or
increased Govt spending vs increased non-government spending.
2. Increased government spending as compared to non-government spending – does it matter? Increased means atleast they already have some spending , so increase or comparison should not affect as much as argument says it is definitely require.? Kind of lost
3. What if C option: An expanding global economy require at least some governmental spending on research into energy technology.
Shall I reject this option only because of “may”? May means it can or can’t happen . But argument says govt spending is must, so this option doesn’t fulfill the gap?
Alternatively as u explained: may or may not won’t make much difference with negate technique. So conclusion remains unaffected , hence this option is not valid as correct answer.
please suggest.
Thanks!
