Last visit was: 21 May 2024, 19:29 It is currently 21 May 2024, 19:29
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.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 93373
Own Kudos [?]: 625655 [12]
Given Kudos: 81918
Send PM
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 93373
Own Kudos [?]: 625655 [2]
Given Kudos: 81918
Send PM
Manager
Manager
Joined: 26 Apr 2016
Posts: 209
Own Kudos [?]: 50 [0]
Given Kudos: 6
GMAT 1: 640 Q44 V33
Send PM
Intern
Intern
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
Posts: 18
Own Kudos [?]: 16 [0]
Given Kudos: 88
Location: India
GMAT 1: 620 Q48 V27
GPA: 3.48
Send PM
Fossil-fuel producers say that it would be prohibitively expensive to [#permalink]
abhishekmayank wrote:
Guys, not able to drop the option B as strengthener. Kindly help... Thanks

choice B: CO2 emissions were reduced by some countries without expenses incurred but we don't know whether this reduction was enough to halt global warming. What if this is a small reduction and should these countries reduce emissions to such a level(halt GW) that they would then have considerable expenses, we don't know this.
choice D is better.

Posted from my mobile device
CEO
CEO
Joined: 07 Mar 2019
Posts: 2576
Own Kudos [?]: 1835 [1]
Given Kudos: 763
Location: India
WE:Sales (Energy and Utilities)
Send PM
Re: Fossil-fuel producers say that it would be prohibitively expensive to [#permalink]
1
Kudos
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. - WRONG. An opposite i.e. weakener(if at all it is anything to the passage). But conclusion is not affected by this at all.

(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. - WRONG. Probably a bad strengthener. But a not necessary case here.

(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. - WRONG. Irrelevant.

(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. - CORRECT. Relatively profits are not hurt more than CFCs producing chemical industry. So, it's good for fossil fuel producers.

(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. - WRONG. Substituting is fine but what about profits, npnl or no prohibitive expense. Plus its a conditional that can end anywhere.

How does the conclusion that the claim is false is strengthened. This is what we are looking for.
Either its a profit as per the example or if not at best its no profit no loss for fossil fuel producers. It was between B and D but D is sure shot winner.

Answer D.
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 17351
Own Kudos [?]: 851 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: Fossil-fuel producers say that it would be prohibitively expensive to [#permalink]
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Fossil-fuel producers say that it would be prohibitively expensive to [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6936 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts