Last visit was: 10 Jul 2025, 04:25 It is currently 10 Jul 2025, 04:25
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
805+ Level|   Assumption|               
User avatar
mSKR
Joined: 14 Aug 2019
Last visit: 10 Mar 2024
Posts: 1,310
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 381
Location: Hong Kong
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GPA: 3.81
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
Posts: 1,310
Kudos: 927
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avatar
AndrewN
avatar
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Last visit: 29 Mar 2025
Posts: 3,502
Own Kudos:
7,372
 [2]
Given Kudos: 500
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 3,502
Kudos: 7,372
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avatar
AndrewN
avatar
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Last visit: 29 Mar 2025
Posts: 3,502
Own Kudos:
7,372
 [4]
Given Kudos: 500
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 3,502
Kudos: 7,372
 [4]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
ShankSouljaBoi
Joined: 21 Jun 2017
Last visit: 17 Apr 2024
Posts: 622
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 4,090
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V31
GMAT 2: 620 Q47 V30
GMAT 3: 650 Q48 V31
GPA: 3.1
WE:Corporate Finance (Non-Profit and Government)
Products:
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AndrewN
ShankSouljaBoi
Hi AndrewN

In the highlighted text above, while considering option A , in the first part of the option we get some thing like---

If research into energy technology does not lead to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, then economic growth will be stifled. --- this breaks the conclusion

But if we drop a not in the then part of if conditional... it does not break the conclusion

If research into energy technology does not lead to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, then economic growth will not be stifled. --- conclusion stands

So my question is what part of an option do we negate ? I often encounter options where negation is possible in two different parts of a sentence, so how do we go about choosing the right part to negate ?
Hello, ShankSouljaBoi. I see you in the chat about every time I pop in, but we rarely cross paths directly. To be clear, I am not a huge fan of the negation technique, in part for the very reason you outline above. Sometimes there are multiple targets for negation, and it can prove challenging to know whether one or the other is the correct one. I prefer instead to leave the answers as is, unaltered, and see if I could drop them into the passage so that I would get a bridge to go from X to Z (with Y, the answer choice, serving as the necessary assumption). It is imperative to develop a keen eye for what that final line (argument/conclusion) says so that you know what Y must contain to get there.

If you do prefer negation, though, then all I can suggest is that you look to take a simple line. If you are unclear about negating one answer choice, then put that one on hold and see if you can negate the other answer choices. With any luck, you will feel better about those, and in this manner, you will either get behind one of the others or you will decide that the weird one has to be correct, negation or no. Work from a place of comfort whenever possible. You will not only remain calmer, but you will also be more likely to walk away with a correct answer, and your timing will improve as well.

I hope that helps. Thank you for thinking to follow up with me.

- Andrew

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
avatar
AndrewN
avatar
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Last visit: 29 Mar 2025
Posts: 3,502
Own Kudos:
7,372
 [1]
Given Kudos: 500
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 3,502
Kudos: 7,372
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ShankSouljaBoi
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
User avatar
kagrawal16
Joined: 31 Jul 2018
Last visit: 01 Dec 2022
Posts: 94
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 76
Location: India
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
GPA: 3
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
Posts: 94
Kudos: 17
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 09 Jul 2025
Posts: 16,101
Own Kudos:
74,237
 [2]
Given Kudos: 475
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,101
Kudos: 74,237
 [2]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
kagrawal16
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.
avatar
RahulHGGmat
Joined: 06 Jun 2020
Last visit: 14 Jan 2022
Posts: 81
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 286
Posts: 81
Kudos: 13
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
User avatar
svasan05
User avatar
CrackVerbal Representative
Joined: 02 Mar 2019
Last visit: 24 Feb 2023
Posts: 269
Own Kudos:
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 269
Kudos: 293
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
RahulHGGmat
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.
User avatar
GMATGuruNY
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
Last visit: 08 Jul 2025
Posts: 1,345
Own Kudos:
3,658
 [1]
Given Kudos: 9
Schools:Dartmouth College
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 1,345
Kudos: 3,658
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.

User avatar
GMATGuruNY
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
Last visit: 08 Jul 2025
Posts: 1,345
Own Kudos:
3,658
 [1]
Given Kudos: 9
Schools:Dartmouth College
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 1,345
Kudos: 3,658
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Given If A, then B:
A = PREMISE
B = CONCLUSION

saby1410
can u explain option A

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.
avatar
ankitbagla
Joined: 24 Sep 2011
Last visit: 25 Nov 2022
Posts: 14
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 45
Location: India
Schools: IIM
GMAT 1: 650 Q50 V26
GPA: 4
Schools: IIM
GMAT 1: 650 Q50 V26
Posts: 14
Kudos: 6
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATGuruNY
Given If A, then B:
A = PREMISE
B = CONCLUSION

saby1410
can u explain option A

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 ?
User avatar
GMATGuruNY
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
Last visit: 08 Jul 2025
Posts: 1,345
Own Kudos:
3,658
 [2]
Given Kudos: 9
Schools:Dartmouth College
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 1,345
Kudos: 3,658
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ankitbagla
I dont understand the negation of Answer choice "a" .

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.
User avatar
Namangupta1997
Joined: 23 Oct 2020
Last visit: 05 Apr 2025
Posts: 146
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 63
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
Posts: 146
Kudos: 6
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AndrewN
Hello again, imSKR. You are keeping me busy today! I will respond in-line below.

imSKR
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.
I would opt for the first interpretation. Just stick with what the passage says. We have no information on nongovernmental spending after the comparative than will.


imSKR
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
It does matter because the conclusion of the argument invokes governmental spending. You should be wondering why the argument takes this turn, and pursuing that line of thought can help you arrive at the correct answer to this question.

imSKR
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!
Yes, that is correct about (C). The may is a complete dealbreaker. In your proposed change, correcting that soft language would improve the viability of the answer, but it would still ignore the delicate balancing act that both the passage and choice (B) outline, that, in simplest terms, between conserving on the one hand and expanding on the other. Your revised choice (C) would only address expansion, and you will note that the passage does not tell us what, precisely, is driving an expanding global economy.

I hope that helps clarify your concerns.

- Andrew


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 ?
avatar
AndrewN
avatar
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Last visit: 29 Mar 2025
Posts: 3,502
Own Kudos:
7,372
 [3]
Given Kudos: 500
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 3,502
Kudos: 7,372
 [3]
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Namangupta1997
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
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 09 Jul 2025
Posts: 16,101
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 475
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,101
Kudos: 74,237
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
generis
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?


A) If research into energy technology does not lead to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, then economic growth will be stifled.

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.

C) 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.

E) Restraining carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth would require both new energy technology and energy conservation efforts.

CR50611.02


Here is a video solution to this problem: https://youtu.be/0j4tovGifIg
User avatar
zoezhuyan
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Last visit: 11 Nov 2024
Posts: 429
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 147
Posts: 429
Kudos: 92
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
KarishmaB
Now, what is the assumption here? Think about it. If we were to conclude that new tech is necessary for A and B to happen together, that would make perfect sense. We need no assumption for that. Then why do we need an assumption? Because the conclusion is saying that increased govt spending in new tech is necessary. This means we are assuming that new tech cannot come without increased govt spending. So we are assuming that non govt spending and current level of govt spending will not lead to this new tech.

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 ?



zoezhuyan
KarishmaB
generis
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?


A) If research into energy technology does not lead to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, then economic growth will be stifled.

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.

C) 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.

E) Restraining carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth would require both new energy technology and energy conservation efforts.

CR50611.02

Check out the video solution here: https://youtu.be/0j4tovGifIg

- 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.

Conclusion: Increases in governmental spending on research into energy technology will be necessary if we wish to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth.

This is what the argument is saying - Current tech cannot support both A and B. If we try to do A, B will not happen.
So increase in govt spending in new tech is necessary for both A and B to happen.

Now, what is the assumption here? Think about it. If we were to conclude that new tech is necessary for A and B to happen together, that would make perfect sense. We need no assumption for that. Then why do we need an assumption? Because the conclusion is saying that increased govt spending in new tech is necessary. This means we are assuming that new tech cannot come without increased govt spending. So we are assuming that non govt spending and current level of govt spending will not lead to this new tech.

(B) Increased Govt spending will more likely give this new tech than non govt spending.
Yes, we are assuming this for sure. In fact, we are assuming something even stronger than this - not just 'more likely' but 'necessary'.

If we negate it:
Increased Govt spending is not more likely to give this new tech than non govt spending.

Now our conclusion doesn't make sense. If this were true, why would increased govt spending be necessary?

Hence (B) is correct.

hi KarishmaB
I am always curious about the comparison in B can be correct here.

I got one assumption question for which comparison is incorrect.
CR07589.
https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-intervie ... 04962.html

Both are comparisons in options, but one is cstiorrect, one is incorrect.

would you please clarify further the difference?

thanks in advance

I am still confused this ? would you please clarify further?
User avatar
DmitryFarber
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Last visit: 06 Jul 2025
Posts: 2,945
Own Kudos:
8,385
 [2]
Given Kudos: 57
GMAT 2: 780  Q50  V50
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 745 Q86 V90 DI85
Posts: 2,945
Kudos: 8,385
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.)
User avatar
Contropositive
Joined: 21 Oct 2023
Last visit: 17 Feb 2025
Posts: 55
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 21
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 635 Q86 V81 DI77
GMAT Focus 1: 635 Q86 V81 DI77
Posts: 55
Kudos: 15
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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

Quote:
(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.

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.
User avatar
ReedArnoldMPREP
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2021
Last visit: 20 Dec 2024
Posts: 521
Own Kudos:
529
 [1]
Given Kudos: 37
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Posts: 521
Kudos: 529
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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!
Contropositive
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

Quote:
(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.

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.
   1   2   3   
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7349 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
235 posts