egmat
Hello folks,
After a very good response to our SC questions last week and demand for questions on CR, we are here with a "Fill in the blank" question, a category increasingly becoming more important on GMAT.
So, share your answers with detailed responses. Looking forward to a healthy discussion

Environmentalists support a major phase-down of fossil fuels and substitution of favored 'nonpolluting' energies to conserve depleting resources and protect the environment. Yet energy megatrends contradict those concerns. Fossil-fuel resources are becoming more abundant, not scarcer, and promise to continue expanding as technology improves, world markets liberalize, and investment capital expands. However, these facts do not mean a smaller role of the nonpolluting sources of energy in the long run given that……………………
Which one of the following statements best completes the passage above?
A. The costs of producing energy from nonpolluting sources of energy have remained constant in the last five years.
B. The availability of fossil fuels does mean an increased use of the same.
C. The amount of confirmed deposits of fossil fuels is sufficient to serve the world energy needs at least over the next two centuries.
D. There is an increasing sense of acceptance across the world on the harmful effects of the use of fossil fuels on the environment
E. Nonpolluting sources of energy are less cost-effective than fossil fuels.
-Chiranjeev
well IMO, the answer is
BPre-thinkingThe passage is structured in a way that begins with the opinions of the Environmentalists who ask for a substitution of fossil fuels (because they are depleting- 'phase down' and 'depleting resources') with some'thing else (non-polluting ones). Now this Mega trend guy contradicts this NEED for substitution and presents that the Fossil fuels are NOT depleting and in fact there are a lot of promises which support the abundance from various sources ( Tech Improvements, WM liberalisation, Inv. Capital expansion..). But then the author concludes that Despite the stuff mentioned by Megatrendz, (abt resource abundance) we cannot assume a smaller role of of the nonpolluting sources of energy in the long run...because.....
So we are looking for an answer choice which will still give us scope for supporting that NON-Polluting sources of energy will still be Important
POEA- The costs of producing energy from nonpolluting sources of energy have remained constant in the last five years-
Even though the Production cost has remained constant, does not show how in comparison to the fossil fuel (abundance) how is it that non-polluting sources will still be important-HENCE OFS-INCORRECTB-The availability of fossil fuels does mean an increased use of the same-
hmm this choice looks good, as it mentions that more the availability of FF the more they are going to be used (and possibly exploited) hence there can come a time (in the long RUN) that would make the use of nonpolluting sources of energy important again-CORRECT C- The amount of confirmed deposits of fossil fuels is sufficient to serve the world energy needs at least over the next two centuries-
Again, C is actually going against the conclusion and Kinda supporting the MEGATREND by stating the abundance for the next two centuries-INCORRECTD-There is an increasing sense of acceptance across the world on the harmful effects of the use of fossil fuels on the environment-
Even if there is an Increasing sense of acceptance abt the harmful effects of FF does not mean anything in this context as it is supporting the Environmentalist's statement, the conclusion is based on megatrend's set of statements on abundance- INCORRECTE-Nonpolluting sources of energy are less cost-effective than fossil fuels-
Kind of reverse answer as it implies an even SMALLER role in the long run as they are not cost-effective!!!-INCORRECTHence IMO
BWaiting for the OA/OE!