Economist: Even with energy conservation efforts, current technologies

Question

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.

ID: 500108
CR50611.02

AndrewN · Answer

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 · Answer

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.

mSKR · Answer

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 g overnmental 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!

AndrewN · Answer

Hello again,  imSKR . You are keeping me busy today! I will respond in-line below.

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 .

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.

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

AndrewN · Answer

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

ShankSouljaBoi · Answer

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

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

Best !!

Posted from my mobile device

AndrewN · Answer

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

kagrawal16 · Answer

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

KarishmaB · Answer

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.

RahulHGGmat · Answer

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.

svasan05 · Answer

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.

GMATGuruNY · Answer

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.

B

GMATGuruNY · Answer

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.

ankitbagla · Answer

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 ?

GMATGuruNY · Answer

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.

Namangupta1997 · Answer

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 ?

AndrewN · Answer

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   , 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

zoezhuyan · Answer

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?

DmitryFarber · Answer

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.)

Contropositive · Answer

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.

Economist: Even with energy conservation efforts, current technologies

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

Economist: Even with energy conservation efforts, current technologies

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