Last visit was: 14 Dec 2024, 01:50 It is currently 14 Dec 2024, 01:50
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Reviews
Social
Chat
My Profile
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
655-705 Level|   Weaken|      
User avatar
Kimberly77
User avatar
Joined: 16 Nov 2021
Last visit: 07 Sep 2024
Posts: 465
Own Kudos:
40
 []
Given Kudos: 5,901
Location: United Kingdom
GMAT 1: 450 Q42 V34
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 1: 450 Q42 V34
Posts: 465
Kudos: 40
 []
Editorial: As societies grow richer, the service sector of the economy 10 Jul 2022, 04:23
Kudos
Add Kudos
9
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
00:00
Start Timer
Pause Timer
Resume Timer
Show Answer
Hide
Show
History
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!

Difficulty:

65% (hard)

Question Stats:

57% (01:48) correct 43% (02:18) wrong based on 313 sessions

History

Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Editorial: As societies grow richer, the service sector of the economy—education, health, banking, and so on-grows in importance relative to energy-intensive activities such as steel production. This shift lowers the ratio of carbon emissions to dollars of economic production. Hence, as societies grow richer, the totality of their carbon emissions declines.

The editorial's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on which of the following grounds?

(A) It confuses absolute decline with relative decline with respect to a growing quantity

(B) It takes for granted that growth in the services sector of a society's economy inevitably causes that society to grow richer.

(C) It overlooks the possibility that there may be an observable correlation between two phenomena even if neither phenomenon causally contributes to the other.

(D) If fails to adequately address the possibility that energy-intensive activities such as steel production tend to become more energy efficient as societies grow richer.

(E) It confuses a claim about carbon emissions with a claim about dollars of economic production
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
A
User avatar
Kimberly77
User avatar
Joined: 16 Nov 2021
Last visit: 07 Sep 2024
Posts: 465
Own Kudos:
40
 []
Given Kudos: 5,901
Location: United Kingdom
GMAT 1: 450 Q42 V34
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 1: 450 Q42 V34
Posts: 465
Kudos: 40
 []
Editorial: As societies grow richer, the service sector of the economy 10 Jul 2022, 04:25
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
PyjamaScientist Could you help clarify why is A correct and E is wrong please? Thanks
User avatar
PyjamaScientist
User avatar
Admitted - Which School Forum Moderator
Joined: 25 Oct 2020
Last visit: 07 Dec 2024
Posts: 1,117
Own Kudos:
1,158
 []
Given Kudos: 628
Schools: Ross '25 (M$)
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42 (Online)
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: Ross '25 (M$)
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42 (Online)
Posts: 1,117
Kudos: 1,158
 []
Editorial: As societies grow richer, the service sector of the economy 11 Jul 2022, 00:35
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Kimberly77
PyjamaScientist Could you help clarify why is A correct and E is wrong please? Thanks
Hi Kimberly77,

Before criticizing the editorial's reasoning first lets delineate what editorial's reasoning actually is:

    • The editorial starts with a fact: As societies grow richer, the service sector of the economy—education, health,
    banking, the service sector of the economy—education, health, banking, and so on-grows in importance relative to energy-intensive activities such as steel production.     In simpler terms: As a society grows richer, contribution of service sector to the economy increases relative to the energy-intensive activities.
    • Then comes another fact: This shift (the growth of service sector of economy relative to energy-intensive activities) lowers the ratio of carbon emissions to dollars of economic production. In simpler terms: Ratio of (Carbon Emissions)/(Dollars of economic production) gets lower as the service economy grows. And we would expect that to happen as service economy makes up part of that denominator. So, that makes sense.
    • Then the editorial reaches to a conclusion: Hence, as societies grow richer, the totality of their carbon emissions declines. That is a pretty bold claim. Just because you know that the ratio has decreased, you can NOT say for sure that the "numerator" value too must have declined. It could easily be the case that numerator (say 100 kgs of carbon emissions) remained the same, but the denominator alone (that includes growing service sector that does not add anything to the numerator carbon emissions) increased. That too would decrease the ratio without any change in the total carbon emissions. This is the flaw in the argument of the editorial, so we need an answer choice that speaks on this.
Let's see why (A) is correct and (E) is not:

Quote:
(A) It confuses absolute decline with relative decline with respect to a growing quantity
This is exactly what the editorial has done. It has confused the relative decline to be the "absolute decline", which may or not be the case. And reaching conclusion solely on that basis is poor reasoning. Correct choice.

Quote:
(E) It confuses a claim about carbon emissions with a claim about dollars of economic
production
Editorial has not confused a claim about carbon emissions with a claim about dollars of economic production. If you look closely, the editorial in fact does not make any claim regarding the dollars of economic production. So, the question of confusing it with carbon emissions seems completely out of scope. The editorial claim is that the decline in ratio of carbon emissions to dollars of economic production is a true indicator of "absolute decline in carbon emissions". And as explained above, this does not necessarily be true and thus is a flaw in the argument. Incorrect choice.

Hope it helps.
User avatar
Kimberly77
User avatar
Joined: 16 Nov 2021
Last visit: 07 Sep 2024
Posts: 465
Own Kudos:
40
Given Kudos: 5,901
Location: United Kingdom
GMAT 1: 450 Q42 V34
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 1: 450 Q42 V34
Posts: 465
Kudos: 40
Editorial: As societies grow richer, the service sector of the economy 11 Jul 2022, 01:16
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
PyjamaScientist
Kimberly77
PyjamaScientist Could you help clarify why is A correct and E is wrong please? Thanks
Hi Kimberly77,

Before criticizing the editorial's reasoning first lets delineate what editorial's reasoning actually is:

    • The editorial starts with a fact: As societies grow richer, the service sector of the economy—education, health,
    banking, the service sector of the economy—education, health, banking, and so on-grows in importance relative to energy-intensive activities such as steel production.     In simpler terms: As a society grows richer, contribution of service sector to the economy increases relative to the energy-intensive activities.
    • Then comes another fact: This shift (the growth of service sector of economy relative to energy-intensive activities) lowers the ratio of carbon emissions to dollars of economic production. In simpler terms: Ratio of (Carbon Emissions)/(Dollars of economic production) gets lower as the service economy grows. And we would expect that to happen as service economy makes up part of that denominator. So, that makes sense.
    • Then the editorial reaches to a conclusion: Hence, as societies grow richer, the totality of their carbon emissions declines. That is a pretty bold claim. Just because you know that the ratio has decreased, you can NOT say for sure that the "numerator" value too must have declined. It could easily be the case that numerator (say 100 kgs of carbon emissions) remained the same, but the denominator alone (that includes growing service sector that does not add anything to the numerator carbon emissions) increased. That too would decrease the ratio without any change in the total carbon emissions. This is the flaw in the argument of the editorial, so we need an answer choice that speaks on this.
Let's see why (A) is correct and (E) is not:

Quote:
(A) It confuses absolute decline with relative decline with respect to a growing quantity
This is exactly what the editorial has done. It has confused the relative decline to be the "absolute decline", which may or not be the case. And reaching conclusion solely on that basis is poor reasoning. Correct choice.

Quote:
(E) It confuses a claim about carbon emissions with a claim about dollars of economic
production
Editorial has not confused a claim about carbon emissions with a claim about dollars of economic production. If you look closely, the editorial in fact does not make any claim regarding the dollars of economic production. So, the question of confusing it with carbon emissions seems completely out of scope. The editorial claim is that the decline in ratio of carbon emissions to dollars of economic production is a true indicator of "absolute decline in carbon emissions". And as explained above, this does not necessarily be true and thus is a flaw in the argument. Incorrect choice.

Hope it helps.

Wow what an insightful and great explanation PyjamaScientist. Makes absolute sense now and thanks a lot.
So only if changes happen in both numerator and denominator then can we say that the editorial claim will be true?
User avatar
PyjamaScientist
User avatar
Admitted - Which School Forum Moderator
Joined: 25 Oct 2020
Last visit: 07 Dec 2024
Posts: 1,117
Own Kudos:
1,158
Given Kudos: 628
Schools: Ross '25 (M$)
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42 (Online)
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: Ross '25 (M$)
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42 (Online)
Posts: 1,117
Kudos: 1,158
Editorial: As societies grow richer, the service sector of the economy 11 Jul 2022, 02:27
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Kimberly77
Wow what an insightful and great explanation PyjamaScientist. Makes absolute sense now and thanks a lot.
So only if changes happen in both numerator and denominator then can we say that the editorial claim will be true?
No. Even then we can not reach the conclusion. We are not here to judge whether that conclusion can be reached or not. We are to judge whether the conclusion logically flows from the premises given.
User avatar
Kimberly77
User avatar
Joined: 16 Nov 2021
Last visit: 07 Sep 2024
Posts: 465
Own Kudos:
40
Given Kudos: 5,901
Location: United Kingdom
GMAT 1: 450 Q42 V34
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 1: 450 Q42 V34
Posts: 465
Kudos: 40
Editorial: As societies grow richer, the service sector of the economy 11 Jul 2022, 02:52
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Understood. Thanks PyjamaScientist :)
User avatar
Niranjan11520
User avatar
Joined: 08 Apr 2024
Last visit: 11 Dec 2024
Posts: 1
Given Kudos: 41
Location: India
Posts: 1
Kudos: 0
Editorial: As societies grow richer, the service sector of the economy 27 Oct 2024, 06:13
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Could you please tell me a reason to neglect option C?
PyjamaScientist
Kimberly77
PyjamaScientist Could you help clarify why is A correct and E is wrong please? Thanks
Hi Kimberly77,

Before criticizing the editorial's reasoning first lets delineate what editorial's reasoning actually is:

    • The editorial starts with a fact: As societies grow richer, the service sector of the economy—education, health,banking, the service sector of the economy—education, health, banking, and so on-grows in importance relative to energy-intensive activities such as steel production. In simpler terms: As a society grows richer, contribution of service sector to the economy increases relative to the energy-intensive activities. • Then comes another fact: This shift (the growth of service sector of economy relative to energy-intensive activities) lowers the ratio of carbon emissions to dollars of economic production. In simpler terms: Ratio of (Carbon Emissions)/(Dollars of economic production) gets lower as the service economy grows. And we would expect that to happen as service economy makes up part of that denominator. So, that makes sense. • Then the editorial reaches to a conclusion: Hence, as societies grow richer, the totality of their carbon emissions declines. That is a pretty bold claim. Just because you know that the ratio has decreased, you can NOT say for sure that the "numerator" value too must have declined. It could easily be the case that numerator (say 100 kgs of carbon emissions) remained the same, but the denominator alone (that includes growing service sector that does not add anything to the numerator carbon emissions) increased. That too would decrease the ratio without any change in the total carbon emissions. This is the flaw in the argument of the editorial, so we need an answer choice that speaks on this.
Let's see why (A) is correct and (E) is not:

Quote:
(A) It confuses absolute decline with relative decline with respect to a growing quantity
This is exactly what the editorial has done. It has confused the relative decline to be the "absolute decline", which may or not be the case. And reaching conclusion solely on that basis is poor reasoning. Correct choice.

Quote:
(E) It confuses a claim about carbon emissions with a claim about dollars of economic
production
Editorial has not confused a claim about carbon emissions with a claim about dollars of economic production. If you look closely, the editorial in fact does not make any claim regarding the dollars of economic production. So, the question of confusing it with carbon emissions seems completely out of scope. The editorial claim is that the decline in ratio of carbon emissions to dollars of economic production is a true indicator of "absolute decline in carbon emissions". And as explained above, this does not necessarily be true and thus is a flaw in the argument. Incorrect choice.

Hope it helps.
User avatar
pierjoejoe
User avatar
Joined: 30 Jul 2024
Last visit: 13 Dec 2024
Posts: 130
Own Kudos:
37
Given Kudos: 421
Location: Italy
Concentration: Accounting, Finance
GPA: 4
WE:Research (Technology)
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Posts: 130
Kudos: 37
Editorial: As societies grow richer, the service sector of the economy 30 Oct 2024, 12:11
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
he says that
country richer --> more services --> in proportion less energy intensive activities.

it than proceed to state that the carbon emission per dollar of production declines and concludes that the richer a society the less it emits carbon.

the point is that the variable the author is analyzing is the ratio between emission to dollar of economic production. richer countries are by definition countries where the economic production is higher, thus the denominator of the ratio is bigger. the conclusion is flawed because richer countries might increase A LOT the carbon emission while keeping the ratio of carbon emission to dollar of GPD low, the only requirement is that the increase in GPD is greater than the increase in carbon emissions.

in fact we might have countries where the ratio decreases and carbon emission diminishes: countries that have a very good and sustainable economy
and countries where the ratio decreases but the carbon emission increases strongly increase: countries that are growing A LOT and at the same time are increasing the amount of carbon emission (lower than the increase in GDP).


in conclusion the author is linking the decrease of a RATIO to the decrease of one of the variables in the ratio. answer A is the perfect one
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7163 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts