GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 07 Dec 2019, 06:35

### 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

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

# Fossil-fuel producers say that it would be prohibitively expensive to

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

VP
Joined: 30 Jan 2016
Posts: 1174
Fossil-fuel producers say that it would be prohibitively expensive to  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Apr 2019, 08:28
2
00:00

Difficulty:

85% (hard)

Question Stats:

50% (02:39) correct 50% (02:39) wrong based on 102 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Fossil-fuel producers say that it would be prohibitively expensive to reduce levels of carbon dioxide emitted by the use of fossil fuels enough to halt global warming. This claim is probably false. Several years ago, the chemical industry said that finding an economical alternative to the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) destroying the ozone layer would be impossible. Yet once the industry was forced, by international agreements, to find substitutes for CFCs, it managed to phase them out completely well before the mandated deadline, in many cases at a profit.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) In the time since the chemical industry phased out CFCs, the destruction of the ozone layer by CFCs has virtually halted, but the levels of carbon dioxide emitted by the use of fossil fuels have continued to increase.

(B) In some countries, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the use of fossil fuels has already been reduced without prohibitive expense, but at some cost in convenience to the users of such fuels.

(C) The use of CFCs never contributed as greatly to the destruction of the ozone layer as the carbon dioxide emitted by the use of fossil fuels currently contributes to global warming.

(D) There are ways of reducing carbon dioxide emissions that could halt global warming without hurting profits of fossil-fuel producers significantly more than phasing out
CFCs hurt those of the chemical industry.

(E) If international agreements forced fossil-fuel producers to find ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions enough to halt global warming, the fossil-fuel producers could find substitutes for fossil fuels.

_________________
Non progredi est regredi
CR & LSAT Forum Moderator
Status: He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Studying for the LSAT -- Corruptus in Extremis
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Posts: 865
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Fossil-fuel producers say that it would be prohibitively expensive to  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Apr 2019, 14:17
1
Fossil-fuel producers say that it would be prohibitively expensive to reduce levels of carbon dioxide emitted by the use of fossil fuels enough to halt global warming. This claim is probably false. Several years ago, the chemical industry said that finding an economical alternative to the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) destroying the ozone layer would be impossible. Yet once the industry was forced, by international agreements, to find substitutes for CFCs, it managed to phase them out completely well before the mandated deadline, in many cases at a profit.

Context: Fossil-fuel producers say that it would be prohibitively expensive to reduce levels of carbon dioxide emitted by the use of fossil fuels enough to halt global warming

Conclusion: This claim (context) is probably false

Premise: Several years ago, the chemical industry said that finding an economical alternative to the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) destroying the ozone layer would be impossible

Premise: Yet once the industry was forced, by international agreements, to find substitutes for CFCs, it managed to phase them out completely well before the mandated deadline, in many cases at a profit.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) In the time since the chemical industry phased out CFCs, the destruction of the ozone layer by CFCs has virtually halted, but the levels of carbon dioxide emitted by the use of fossil fuels have continued to increase. -- OK, who cares? This is hoping that you will see a bunch of information randomly thrown together and that you will go with it. But think about this comment; it connects CFCs with carbon dioxide and the two are unrelated.

(B) In some countries, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the use of fossil fuels has already been reduced without prohibitive expense, but at some cost in convenience to the users of such fuels. -- OK, but does it stop climate change? And who are these countries? Way too many assumptions need to be made to make this work.

(C) The use of CFCs never contributed as greatly to the destruction of the ozone layer as the carbon dioxide emitted by the use of fossil fuels currently contributes to global warming. -- OK, and? What about the cost? This tries to bait you into assuming that damage somehow equals cost. Again, just throwing information together and hoping that you pick it.

(D) There are ways of reducing carbon dioxide emissions that could halt global warming without hurting profits of fossil-fuel producers significantly more than phasing out CFCs hurt those of the chemical industry. -- So this pairs the analogy to the fossil fuel industry. And says it won't hurt them that much. This strengthens our conclusion that they can probably do it without hurting themselves financially. Bingo!

(E) If international agreements forced fossil-fuel producers to find ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions enough to halt global warming, the fossil-fuel producers could find substitutes for fossil fuels. -- Wow, just begging people to choose it from a trap standpoint. This is classic LSAT. Let us break it down. This talks about the reduction in carbon dioxide, but not about cost. Again, our goal is to show profit will not be affected. Further, who cares about a substitute? We would have to assume that this substitute is less damaging yet still profitable. How can we make these assumptions? We cannot. And this is out.
_________________
D-Day: November 18th, 2017

My CR Guide: Here
My RC Guide: Here
Want to be a moderator? We may want you to be one! See how: Here
Fossil-fuel producers say that it would be prohibitively expensive to   [#permalink] 07 Apr 2019, 14:17
Display posts from previous: Sort by