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
_________________