In June of 2009, the state legislature passed a series of laws

We are talking of emission from coal powered factories.. Incorrect

ans D[/quote]


Hi chetan2u,

I understand your reasoning and thanks for the explanation.
However , I have one question.
The question stem says "and even the owners of several coal-powered factories expressed their appreciation of the state's care in ensuring that the laws were fair and cost-effective for industry"
It seems it is telling that already coal industry was in favor of the law because they said it was fair and cost effective. that means its not going hit them back when implemented.
So does the authority really had a reason to worry about loss of support from coal industry ?

is it really a 700 lvl question?

to solve the paradox questions, we can use the below magic formula:

Because - new information-, fact A is true, while B is true as well.

A. Some of the provisions in the legislation were scaled back due to budgetary constraints.
irrelevant

B. More than half the factories in the state are oil-powered plants and were not subject to the new legislation.
but do the oil-powered plants, not subjected to the new legislation, produce carbon emission? technically yes, but since it's gmat, we can't know for sure

C. Factories subject to the law were provided with tax breaks and given up to two years to retrofit their facilities in order to ease the burden of reaching compliance with the new legislation.
2009+2 years = 2011 - can't explain.

D. In anticipation of the 2012 elections, the legislature structured the package to take effect after the elections were completed rather than risk loss of support from the coal industry.
aha, so basically the laws were not enforced in 2009, and as such, plants continued to work as they did before, and as a result, even more emission was released.

E. Rather than invest in clean coal technology required by the legislation, several coal-powered plants converted their operations to run on oil power, removing themselves from the jurisdiction of the new laws.
same question as I had in B - oil powered plants produce carbon emission? are we 100% sure ? no.

They increased, but only by a little bit ('a fraction of a percent higher'). The goal is really to explain why the emissions did not *decrease*. Clearly the legislation was meant to cut emissions. The opposite of 'cut emissions' is 'the same amount of emissions or more.' We have slightly *more* than we used to. How?

Well, the laws aren't even in effect yet. So no one felt the need to cut emissions yet, and they actually trended upward a little. But the little uptick isn't the point of interest--it's that the legislation isn't making emissions *decline*.

I was between C &D but rejected D because of following statement: "the amount of carbon emitted by coal-powered factories was actually a fraction of a percent higher in 2012 than it had been in 2009."

I was not sure why the emission % will increase when legislation was delayed till 2000.

tryambaks's reasoning will only come into picture when you have assess whether D is true or not. But here we just have to take the option for what it says (like chetan2u mentioned) - the enforcement was delayed until 2012 - and evaluate whether it helps explain the paradox.

VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

There’s a subtle gap in logic at play in this question – the legislature passed these laws to reduce carbon emissions, but the laws were not necessarily implemented. And if the laws were not implemented by 2012, the 2012 carbon emission totals would not reflect the mission of the laws. Choice D exploits that gap, noting that the laws did not take effect until well into 2012 (or afterward), in which case the laws could still be groundbreaking but just not at work yet. Choice A is a trap answer – even if “some” pieces of the legislation were scaled back, those that weren’t scaled back should still be expected to produce some kind of negative pressure on emissions. Choice B is irrelevant – as the argument is only about coal powered plants and the emissions from them, oil powered plants do not matter. Choice C is the most popular trap answer. That two-year implementation timeframe would still mean that the laws would be fully in place by the middle of 2011, and should therefore have produced a reduction in 2012 emissions. And choice E should also help reduce coal-related emissions, as any coal plant that became an oil plant would no longer emit coal-related emissions, causing a decrease in coal emissions.

In 2009, laws were passed to eliminate carbon emissions from coal-powered factories.
Environmentalists were happy.
Even the owners of several coal-powered factories expressed their appreciation of the state's care in ensuring that the laws were fair and cost-effective for industry.
Yet data for the fiscal year 2012 shows that the amount of carbon emitted by coal-powered factories was actually a fraction of a percent higher in 2012 than it had been in 2009.

Paradox - Coal factory owners found the laws fair n cost effective but still it seems that they were ignored since 2012 data shows higher carbon from coal factories.

What explains this?

(A) Some of the provisions in the legislation were scaled back due to budgetary constraints.

We don't know the impact this could have had.

(B) More than half the factories in the state are oil-powered plants and were not subject to the new legislation.

Irrelevant. We are talking about "carbon emission from coal plants only" in 2009 as well as 2012. Oil plants are irrelevant.

(C) Factories subject to the law were provided with tax breaks and given up to two years to retrofit their facilities in order to ease the burden of reaching compliance with the new legislation.

2 yrs would be 2011. So in 2012, we should have seen reduction in carbon emission. Doesn't help.

(D) In anticipation of the 2012 elections, the legislature structured the package to take effect after the elections were completed rather than risk loss of support from the coal industry.

Correct. It seems the laws were to be implemented post 2012. So in 2012, one would not see any reduction in carbon emissions. Explains.

(E) Rather than invest in clean coal technology required by the legislation, several coal-powered plants converted their operations to run on oil power, removing themselves from the jurisdiction of the new laws.

More of a reason that carbon emission from coal plants should have reduced if number of coal plants have reduced. Doesn't explain.

Answer (D)

Hi, thanks for the explanation but why is A incorrect?

Since the emission only increased by a fraction of the percent; SOME provisions that were scaled back could explain the fraction of the % increase in emissions?

As for option D, the question states several coal-powered factories expressed their appreciation of the state's care, so then why would the govn. wait till the elections to implement the laws if it wouldnt affect the coal factory owners votes.

Thanks in advance.

hi,

can someone please explain how D explains why emissions got increased? its nowhere written in question stem that emissions were in upwards trend.
we need an explanation for paradox that despite everyone agreed that laws are helpful emissions still INCREASED.

Where is the explanation for the increase in emissions?

hi,

can someone please explain how D explains why emissions got increased? its nowhere written in question stem that emissions were in upwards trend.
we need an explanation for paradox that despite everyone agreed that laws are helpful emissions still INCREASED.

Where is the explanation for the increase in emissions?

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.