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

Question

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.

Bunuel · Answer

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT The conclusion here is, “This claim is probably false,” because it’s a prediction and the remainder of the argument sets out to prove this prediction. The evidence is this: “several years ago, they couldn’t solve the CFC problem either, but they were forced to, and they did it.” Therefore, the logic goes, their current claim that they can’t solve the CO2 problem is probably false. Ideally, this argument will make you mad. Here’s my objection: Can’t they have been wrong last time, and still be right this time? What the eff does the CFC issue have to do with the CO2 issue anyway? Maybe the two are similar, but couldn’t they be completely different, according to the limited information we were given? We don’t have any idea, because the argument neglects to tell us. This is a huge weakness in the argument… this is where King Hippo’s pants fall down.(See www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFIbzmYTIGc for a short video of Little Mac defeating King Hippo on the original Nintendo Entertainment System.) To strengthen the argument, I would ideally like to plug this gap. So something like, “Anything that is true of the CFC issue is also true of the CO2 issue,” would fit in nicely. The correct answer might not be exactly that, but I’m predicting that it will be that, or something similar to that. A) This isn’t what we’re looking for. Let’s not bother with it until we go through all five answer choices. B) Same explanation as A. C) Same explanation as A & B. D) This isn’t perfect, but it’s the closest so far because it suggests that CO2 could be phased out without more pain than phasing out CFCs entailed. E) “Substitutes for fossil fuels” isn’t the issue, and it’s mentioned nowhere in the argument. The issue is simply, “Can the producers reduce CO2 emissions?” regardless of what mechanism the producers use. You can’t pick E without bringing in your own outside knowledge, which you’re not allowed to do. So the best answer is D. This question is a great example of knowing how to strengthen an argument by first weakening the argument. You need to be on the attack. The correct answer is almost always related to some shortcoming that can be identified before looking at the answer choices.

abhishekmayank · Answer

Guys, not able to drop the option B as strengthener. Kindly help... Thanks

abhishek893rai · Answer

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

unraveled · Answer

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.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

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

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

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

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards