In recent years, variations of the "precautionary principle" have been

Question

In recent years, variations of the "precautionary principle" have been adopted in international environmental agreements and regulations. Advocates of its use in such contexts hold that where there is a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of a consensus regarding the scientific certainty of the threat should not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective environmental regulations to prevent the damage. Advocates argue that the precautionary principle reinforces commonsense notions of environmental stewardship. Opponents, however, view it as a fundamentally unscientific rule that exploits the public’s fear of the unfamiliar and promotes radical environmental agendas or protectionist trade policies disguised as environmental regulations.

Advocates counter that the precautionary principle’s application is justified by science's demonstrated fallibility in anticipating environmental hazards such as asbestosis and ozone depletion. Additionally, they say, some potential environmental hazards cannot be predicted with any certainty by existing scientific methods. Thus, the precautionary principle would allow potentially harmful activities to be regulated even if conclusive proof that harm will occur has yet to be established. However, given that environmental regulations entail real costs—e.g., concern with improbable risks can consume resources that could be better applied to higher-probability risks—opponents also note that the precautionary principle can be taken too far.

The distinction between uncertainty and what might be called "true uncertainty" is important to understanding the scope of the precautionary principle. Uncertainty generally refers to situations in which outcomes are probabilistic in nature, but for which a probability distribution can be formulated. True uncertainty refers to situations in which even the probability of an outcome is not known. It is this latter situation with which advocates of the precautionary principle are primarily concerned. For example, trials may be performed to determine the frequency with which a particular gasoline storage tank will fail in relation to its age—an uncertain harm—which in turn may be used to formulate a probability distribution on which to base regulations. Truly uncertain harms, such as global warming, often arise when controlled testing is impossible and there is no experience from which to construct a probability distribution.

1. The final paragraph of the passage functions primarily to

A. provide evidence that supports the argument presented by advocates of the precautionary principle
B. summarize the argument presented by advocates of the precautionary principle
C. provide evidence that calls into question the main argument presented by opponents of the precautionary principle
D. clarify the type of situations to which the precautionary principle would be considered applicable by its advocates
E. provide real-world examples of the appropriate application of the precautionary principle

2. The passage indicates that advocates of the precautionary principle believe that

A. modern science cannot with certainty predict certain environmental hazards
B. opponents of the precautionary principle are motivated by radical political agendas
C. the public’s fear of truly uncertain hazards is often unfounded
D. promoting political agendas is unavoidable when establishing environmental policy
E. activities that pose predictable harms usually need less regulation than do those that are unpredictable

3. In the passage, opponents of the precautionary principle are reported as raising each of the following issues EXCEPT:

A. The precautionary principle is fundamentally unscientific.
B. The precautionary principle is sometimes used to disguise trade policies as environmental regulations.
C. Environmental regulations entail real costs.
D. Advocates of the precautionary principle are primarily concerned with true uncertainty.
E. Environmental regulations are sometimes based on radical environmental agendas.

4. In the passage, advocates of the precautionary principle refer to asbestosis and ozone depletion primarily to

A. suggest that more funds need to be allocated to formulate probability distributions for certain hazards
B. identify environmental hazards that will require more stringent regulation
C. clarify the distinction between uncertainty and true uncertainty
D. provide evidence of the failure of science to anticipate the potential for serious environmental damage
E. suggest that in the face of some potential harms the precautionary principle should not be taken too far

Show Spoiler

Attachment:

GMAT-Club-Forum-gaapgm1k.png [ 194.65 KiB | Viewed 2661 times ]

Attachment:

GMAT-Club-Forum-cmuouqwj.png [ 55.69 KiB | Viewed 2656 times ]

Attachment:

GMAT-Club-Forum-67ullrkk.png [ 48.6 KiB | Viewed 2663 times ]

Attachment:

GMAT-Club-Forum-aycgaq9z.png [ 49.46 KiB | Viewed 2656 times ]

Attachment:

GMAT-Club-Forum-rmqmvrtf.png [ 56.48 KiB | Viewed 2653 times ]

Show Answer Question #1

Official Answer

D

Show Answer Question #2

Official Answer

A

Show Answer Question #3

Official Answer

D

Show Answer Question #4

Official Answer

D

SergejK · Answer

Could someone explain why in question 3, d is correct? I saw that opponents never actually took position in the passage regarding with what the advocates were primarily concerned as it was only mentioned in the last paragraph. However, I wasn't brave enough to choose this option as it was presented and I was not clear, whose position the passage refers to: the author's or the opponent's. Would appreciate if the difference could be explained to me when I can infer who is talking.

maximilius491 · Answer

D. Advocates of the precautionary principle are primarily concerned with true uncertainty.

This issue is discussed from the perspective of advocates, not opponents. The other options reflect concerns raised by opponents about the precautionary principle.

emmamis · Answer

Q4- Answer: (D)
 
The passage states: "Advocates of the principle cite cases such as asbestosis and ozone depletion as evidence of the failure of traditional risk assessment to protect the environment." The phrase "failure of traditional risk assessment" directly implies that science, in its traditional approach, did not foresee or adequately predict the serious harm these issues would cause. Therefore, these examples serve to illustrate science's past inability to anticipate such damage.

soumyab12 · Answer

Can someone explain Q1 please? Most option seem correct

egmat · Answer

Q1 Explanation
 Correct Answer: D

What This Question Is Really Asking
 "What job does the final paragraph do in this passage?"
Not "what's IN the paragraph" but "WHY did the author write it?"

Let's Map Out the Passage First
  Paragraph 1:  Introduces the precautionary principle. Some people like it (advocates), some don't (opponents).
 Paragraph 2:  More details about why advocates support it and why opponents worry about it.
 Paragraph 3:  Makes a distinction between two types of uncertainty and gives examples.

The Key to Understanding Paragraph 3
 Look at the very first sentence of the final paragraph:
 
 "Scope"  means: When does this apply? What situations is it meant for?
The author is saying: "Hey, to understand WHEN this principle is supposed to be used, you need to know the difference between regular uncertainty and true uncertainty."

Then the Paragraph Explains the Difference
  Regular uncertainty:  We don't know exactly what will happen, BUT we can calculate probabilities.
 
 Example: Testing gasoline tanks to see how often they fail based on age. We can run tests, collect data, and figure out the odds.  
 True uncertainty:  We can't even figure out the probabilities. We have no way to test or predict.
 
 Example: Global warming effects. Can't do controlled experiments. Can't calculate exact odds.  
 The Critical Statement 
 
Translation: Advocates think the precautionary principle should be used for TRUE uncertainty situations, not regular uncertainty situations.
 This is scope clarification  = explaining what KIND of situations the principle is meant for.

Answer Choice Analysis

Option A:  "provide evidence that supports the argument presented by advocates"
Does the paragraph argue that the precautionary principle is GOOD or RIGHT? No. It just explains when advocates think it should be used. Not arguing for it, just describing it.
❌ Wrong

Option B:  "summarize the argument presented by advocates"
A summary repeats what was already said. But paragraphs 1 and 2 already told us the advocates' argument. This paragraph adds something NEW—the distinction between two types of uncertainty. That's not a summary.
❌ Wrong

Option C:  "provide evidence that calls into question the main argument presented by opponents"
Does this paragraph challenge or attack what opponents say? Does it even mention opponents? No. It's just explaining a distinction to help us understand scope.
❌ Wrong

Option D:  "clarify the type of situations to which the precautionary principle would be considered applicable by its advocates"
Let's break this down:
 
 "clarify" = make clear ✓ (that's what the paragraph does) 
 "type of situations" = true uncertainty vs. regular uncertainty ✓ 
 "applicable" = when it should be used ✓ 
 "by its advocates" = from the advocates' perspective ✓  
The passage literally says: "the distinction is important to understanding the SCOPE" and "advocates are primarily concerned with TRUE uncertainty."
✅  This matches perfectly

Option E:  "provide real-world examples of the appropriate application of the precautionary principle"
"Application" means actually USING the principle—like showing a regulation or policy based on it.
Does the paragraph show that? Let's check:
 
 Gasoline tanks: Just says we CAN figure out probabilities and make regulations. Doesn't describe any actual regulation. Plus, this is regular uncertainty—NOT what advocates primarily care about. 
 Global warming: Just mentioned as an example of true uncertainty. No regulation or application described.  
The examples show the DIFFERENCE between two types of uncertainty. They don't show the precautionary principle being applied.
❌ Wrong

Without this final paragraph, you'd think: "Okay, the precautionary principle is for uncertain situations."
After reading it, you know: "Oh, advocates specifically mean TRUE uncertainty—situations where we can't even calculate the odds, not just regular uncertainty."
That's clarifying the TYPE of situation where it applies. That's what D says.

Your Takeaway
 When a question asks what a paragraph "functions" to do, think:
 "What would I NOT understand if this paragraph was deleted?" 
Here: You wouldn't know that advocates distinguish between types of uncertainty and only care about applying this to TRUE uncertainty specifically.

That's scope clarification = Answer D.

soumyab12 · Answer

Extremely helpful, especially the takeaway! Thank you so much

In recent years, variations of the "precautionary principle" have been

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 Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

In recent years, variations of the "precautionary principle" have been

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