Economist: Even with energy conservation efforts, current technologies

Thank you sir for responding and clearing my query . Your approach totally makes sense to me. And yes I am a lot active on chats these days, as it helps clearing doubts in a faster manner, while I can help the new users in any way I can (helping the community actually helps). Of course, by hanging on chats I can talk to experts like you and gain your perspectives. One more thing are you really Bunuel ? Haha

Again, thank you for responding back and taking out time in the festive season !!! Shoutout to you !!!


Best !!

Posted from my mobile device

Of course. I like to help when I can. And I agree that the chat feature can be a quicker way to get feedback on a matter. The more users there are like you who aim to both utilize and contribute to the community, the better that community will be. Thank you for giving back. Am I Bunuel? All I can say is that I have no idea how this rumor started...

- Andrew

Hi VeritasKarishma,
Mam request your views regarding the negation of option C.

As per my understanding,
An expanding global economy may require at least some spending...

In this option the “May” makes some thing necessary as “may be necessary”.
So by itself it’s not an assumption.

However in my view the negation
An expanding global economy may require no government spending.

For negation I always look at key words some, none, all before I negate the verbs.

As per my view, the negated version above with the word May does hurt the conclusion. This is because “may require no spending” gives a possibility that what is required can be done without.

I believe we should always check both ways like evaluate an argument?

Tia🙂

Posted from my mobile device

Option (C) is irrelevant with or without 'may'. Note what we need: Govt's input in new tech that will allow expansion of economy while reducing carbon emission.
Whether expansion of economy (with or without carbon emission) needs Govt's input in new tech, we don't know.

(C) An expanding global economy may require at least some governmental spending on research into energy technology.

But (C) says that expansion of economy may need govt spending on energy tech.

Look at the actual answer
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.

Hi expert.

I am confused between B and E. I went with E and gone wrong.

Request you to please confirm, how the negation of E does not satisfy the condition.

Hi Rahul

Negation of option (E) states: Restraining carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth would not require both new energy technology and energy conservation efforts.

This implies that achieving both lower emissions and growth would require at least one of new energy technology or conservation efforts. This does not break my conclusion in any way, since the conclusion is that governmental spending on new technology is needed to achieve both lower emissions and growth (together), since new technology is definitely needed. There is nothing in option (E) that relates to the necessity of government spending and hence its negation does not impact out conclusion.

Hope this helps.

Goal:
To reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth.
Conclusion:
Increases in government spending will be NECESSARY.

Apply the NEGATION TEST.
When the correct answer is negated, the conclusion will be invalidated.

B, negated:
Increased governmental spending on research into energy technology will NOT be more likely to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling growth than will nongovernmental spending.
Here, nongovernmental spending is equally likely -- if not MORE likely -- to achieve the blue goal above, invalidating the conclusion that increases in government spending will be necessary.

Since the negation of B invalidates the conclusion, B is an assumption: a statement that MUST BE TRUE for the conclusion to hold.

Given If A, then B:
A = PREMISE
B = CONCLUSION


Passage:
Increases in governmental spending on research into energy technology will be necessary if we wish to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth.
Rephrased as in if-then statement:
If we wish to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth, then we must increase governmental spending on research into energy technology.
In the if-then statement above, the blue portion constitutes part of the PREMISE.

A: If research into energy technology does not lead to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions
Here, the portion in red hypothesizes that the blue portion of the premise FAILS TO HAPPEN.
Not viable.
A premise cannot be disputed.
Any answer choice that goes against a premise is wrong.
Eliminate A.

Hello Sir,
GMATGuruNY

I dont understand the negation of Answer choice "a" .
As per my understanding , negation of Ans choice "a" shall be

if research into energy technology does NOT lead to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, then
economic growth will be stifled. How does it question the premise ?

In my earlier post, the negation test was not applied to A.
Option A was eliminated because -- AS WRITTEN -- it goes against a premise of the argument.

Passage: If we wish to reduce carbon dioxide emissions
Option A, as written: If research does not lead to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions

Whereas the argument is premised on a desire to reduce carbon emissions, the premise in A is that carbon emissions are NOT reduced.
Since A as written goes against a premise of the argument, eliminate A.

Hi AndrewN
Wouldn't option B be stronger if after than will it said "no spending" rather than "non government spending" ? As I understand, the assumption is not that source X would get to our goal more easily than source Y. Assumption is that atleast some financial support needed. Without that support, economy will stifle.

Option C would have been the winner if it said "will" instead of "may". Is my understanding correct ?

Hello, Namangupta1997. It has been a long day for me, so pardon the delay in my response. In general, I advise people not to tamper with answer choices. After all, you have to appreciate that GMAC™ labored over these answer choices and sent them through extensive testing to present them exactly as they are, and to ensure that there would be a single best answer. That said, if you replace nongovernmental spending at the end of answer choice (B) with no spending [at all], then it begs the question, why did the economist mention governmental spending specifically? Your revised version seems to miss the point of the comparison, which is not centered on spending money versus not spending money. Rather, it has to do with who is spending the money.

As you know, I have discussed answer choice (C) in an earlier post. I stand by my earlier claim that the passage does not tell us what, precisely, is driving an expanding global economy. The answer could be any of a number of factors. The overarching idea of the passage is that energy conservation (via a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions) cannot be achieved at the same time as a global economy expands, unless research leads to the development of new technologies, research that will have to come in the form of governmental spending. So no, I do not agree that a simple switch from may to will in answer choice (C) would make such a new answer the correct one. It is quite conceivable that an expanding global economy could grow and pollute the environment with an increasing volume of carbon dioxide emissions, and the government would not have to foot the bill at all.

Thank you for thinking to ask.

- Andrew

Here is a video solution to this problem: https://youtu.be/0j4tovGifIg

Hi @KarishmaB
and other experts,

I suddenly realized a reasoning bug that I haven't paid attention.
is there only one necessary assumption for argument ?
for this Q, Gov spending is a necessary assumption, so there is no other necessary assumption expect Gov spending?
or
because the conclusion mentions gov spending, so we need eliminate other necessary assumption, such as non-gov spending ?




I am still confused this ? would you please clarify further?

zoezhuyan

First, I think this question may be causing confusion because the conclusion says that government spending is "necessary." But that isn't the same thing as a necessary assumption. A necessary assumption is a statement that ISN'T in the argument, but that is needed in order for us to reasonably reach the conclusion stated by the author. We can usually tell an assumption is necessary be negating it. If the statement is NOT true, does the argument fail? In that case, it was necessary. Here, the author is describing the need for new tech, but then concludes that government spending is needed. This relies on the assumption that government spending is the best/only way to get that new tech. If there's any other way to get it (non-gov spending, working from existing plans, more innovative thinking, etc.), then we can't say the government spending is actually needed. So there are many potential necessary assumptions (there usually are!), and B is just one of them. It could just as well have said "New energy technology cannot be promptly developed without an increase in government spending" or "New technology won't be delivered for free by magic flying ponies." Okay, we probably wouldn't see that last one, but it IS a necessary assumption. If it were false--if the ponies really DID bring us the tech we need--then it wouldn't make sense to conclude that increased govt spending is needed.

(Also, a quick note: when you're identifying assumptions, try to think in terms of full statements. We can't ever say that a single noun, like "government spending" or "non-government spending" is an assumption. We need to know exactly what fact or idea about that spending the author is relying on.)

DmitryFarber KarishmaB ReedArnoldMPREP GMATGuruNY

I get that none of the options but B come close to the argument in question, but i am not convinced with (B) being a NA.

Conclusion:
To reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth --> Increases in governmental spending on research into energy technology will be NECESSARY


Negation of (B): Government spending is equally/less likely to reduce the C02 emissions than Non-Gov spending does.

Okay, so granted that ''Government spending is equally/less likely....'' but if we take other factors in consideration, we can still say that Gov spending is necessary.

Say, Non-Gov is very corrupt and inefficient, and even though Gov and Non-Gov are equally likely to reduce the emission, only Gov-spending ticks all the boxes, and hence it is the necessary one! I don't understand the comparison here, highlighting only one aspect.

Here is a very important lesson about Critical Reasoning:

**Do not treat the answer choices like you do the conclusions.**

It is important that we be critical of the conclusions. We wonder "Maybe this thing isn't true? I can imagine a situation in which this conclusion does not hold!" That's good--that's a key skill in Critical Reasoning.

But with *answer choices* that kind of thinking isn't actually helpful, and tends to lead to confusion. You're looking at B and saying "Wait a minute, I can imagine a world where the government is very inefficient and nongovernmental spending is better at lowering emissions but still achieving growth!" Of course that's possible!

But we're wondering what is NECESSARY FOR THIS ARGUMENT, not what IS OR ISN'T TRUE. This argument's conclusion is that GOVERNMENT SPENDING IS NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THESE TWO GOALS. For government spending to be NECESSARY, non-government spending cannot be more efficient at these goals, because if it *were*, government spending would *not* be necessary. That situation, **whether it's actually true or not**, needs to be true for the author's conclusion to hold.

On a 'find the assumption' question, remember that your goal is "Which of these scenarios must be true for the argument to hold?" and is not "Is that necessary scenario actually, definitely true? Or can I imagine a scenario where it is *not* true?"

And more broadly, don't treat the answers in CR like you treat conclusions! You doubt conclusions--but you take answer choices and (generally) the premises to arguments at the their word!