Proposal: Carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere block the escap

Question

Proposal: Carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere block the escape of heat into space. So emission of these “greenhouse” gases contributes to global warming. In order to reduce global warming, emission of greenhouse gases needs to be reduced. Therefore, the methane now emitted from open landfills should instead be burned to produce electricity.

Objection: The burning of methane generates carbon dioxide that is released into the atmosphere.

Objection: The burning of methane generates carbon dioxide that is released into the atmosphere.

Which of the following, if true, most adequately counters the objection made to the proposal?

(A) Every time a human being or other mammal exhales, there is some carbon dioxide released into the air.

(B) The conversion of methane to electricity would occur at a considerable distance from the landfills.

(C) The methane that is used to generate electricity would generally be used as a substitute for a fuel that does not produce any greenhouse gases when burned.

(D) Methane in the atmosphere is more effective in blocking the escape of heat from the Earth than is carbon dioxide.

(E) The amount of methane emitted from the landfills could be reduced if the materials whose decomposition produces methane were not discarded, but recycled.

CR27430.02

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

The conclusion of the initial proposal is that "the methane now emitted from open landfills should instead be burned to produce electricity." In other words, the methane from landfills should be burned to produce electricity, preventing the methane from entering the atmosphere. Why do this? Because methane in the atmosphere blocks the escape of heat and contributes to global warming. If we want to reduce global warming, we should reduce the amount of methane emitted into the atmosphere. Burning the methane from landfills would accomplish this goal, according to the proposal.

This proposal is then met with an objection. The person making the objection does not dispute that burning methane from landfills would reduce emission of  methane  into the atmosphere. However, because burning methane generates carbon dioxide (another greenhouse gas), reducing methane emissions in this way would  increase  emissions of another greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide). In other words, the proposed method of reducing emissions of one greenhouse gas (methane) would simply increase the emissions of another (carbon dioxide). Now we need to select a statement that, if true, would counter this objection:
 
The proposal in the passage -- and the objection to that proposal -- are related to the burning of methane emitted from open landfills. But the proposal and the objection have nothing to do with the amount of carbon dioxide released by humans and other mammals when they exhale. This statement does not counter the objection in the passage, so (A) can be eliminated.
 
Regardless of where the methane is burned to produce electricity, the conversion process would still presumably generate carbon dioxide emissions that would enter the atmosphere. Thus, the distance from the landfills does not counter the objection, and choice (B) can be eliminated.
 
Remember, the objection is that "the burning of methane generates carbon dioxide that is released into the atmosphere." If anything, choice (C) strengthens the objection. The burning of methane will generate another greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide) that contributes to global warming, AND this methane will be used as a substitute to replace a fuel that does NOT produce any greenhouse gases and thus does NOT contribute to global warming. Thus, this statement presents another drawback of burning methane to produce electricity, and choice (C) can be eliminated.
 
The objection is that the proposed method of reducing emissions of one greenhouse gas (methane) would increase the emissions of another greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide). However, choice (D) tells us that methane is MORE effective in blocking the escape of heat than is carbon dioxide. If we are trying to reduce global warming, we would certainly rather have carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than methane, since carbon dioxide traps less heat and thus contributes less to global warming than methane does. The objection implies that burning the methane will NOT reduce global warming because it will simply replace one greenhouse gas with another. However, choice (D) effectively counters this objection by stating that having carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is better than having methane in the atmosphere, if we want to reduce global warming. Choice (D) looks good.
 
Regardless of the amount of methane emitted from open landfills, the proposal is that this methane should be burned instead of being allowed to enter the atmosphere, and the objection is that burning the methane will create another greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide). Reducing the amount of methane would not impact either argument, so choice (E) can be eliminated, and (D) is our answer.

aragonn · Answer

adkikani

There is only one way to break the weaken questions. "work on the reasoning" that's it. I really want to give you points for your efforts but i want you to work on your approach. repeat it question by question. Something is reasoning when on the basis of facts you come to a conclusion. Something wrong in that reasoning. you need to make your mind or rather say read the reasoning of the GMAT guy, who made that question. what he/she was thinking. Remember in real life probably all of these options can be the solution, but in GMAT something specific is. Just execute your plan. For this specific case your plan should be

1. find the author's reasoning. ----- conclusion backed with evidence. and now think why it is wrong.
2. You must pre-phrase your answer. with out that you will loose a lot of time.
3. Repeat the plan in every question.

What to do here ?  
1. what question want to ask -> counters the objection made to the proposal.
2. What is the basis of that objection ? The burning of methane generates carbon dioxide that is released into the atmosphere. ---- objection says that this is not good. as co2 will be released when CH4 will be burned. 
3. Now pre-phrase - ask urself, before looking any choice, why this objection is baseless. Here is how I pre-prased my answer.

Pre-thinking: 
1. burning 1 ch4 produce only half amount of co2.
2. Some how it is not a good idea to release ch4 when compared to CO2.

Why pre-thinking is important here? 
1. once you start reading an option, you start thinking about it and sometime you fall into the traps created by GMAT Gurus.
2. pre-prasing put you in right direction. you just want to find an option or something in that direction. This way you will read faster.

Why C is wrong? 
So you are saying that CH4 should be used in place of a fuel that does not produce any greenhouse gases when burned. so you will use CH4 in place which will burn and produce CO2. How this is a good solution. basically you are saying in a different way what Objection guy is saying.

Crux: Substitute methane for electricity with methane for fuel -> Fewer greenhouse gases and hence less temp will rise. --->  How you came to this crux ? why you think Fewer greenhouse gases will be released. moreover fewer then what ? all we know is that when CH4 will be burned, CO2 will be produced. May be more amount of CO2 will be produced.

Summary:  
Improvements you should make.
1. Have a plan for every type of question and no matter how easy question is, Just execute your plan.
2. Just look at the reasoning in the statement. This will define the scope for you. Do not go beyond it.
3. Pre-phase - No matter what you must pre-think your answer. 
4. Make your notes. follow them and only follow them for every question. If still you cant make it then find what was wrong, your notes or your approach.

Tag me in any post where you can't pre-think or can't execute your plan. I will definitly try to help you.

Hope it will be helpful.

spriya · Answer

adkikani · Answer

generis   GMATNinja   VeritasKarishma   nightblade354   GMATGuruNY   aragonn

Please validate my reasoning for (C)

Conclusion: M to be burned instead of simply releasing it into atmosphere 
since 
this gas along with Co2 (Carbon dioxide) causes the temperature to rise

Imagine above to be Person A's claim:

Claim: The burning of methane generates carbon dioxide that is released into the atmosphere.

Person B objects: No, burning M will cause more CO2 and hence more temperature will rise.

I need to weaken B's claim:

Here is how I broke it:
The methane 
that is used to generate electricity would generally be used as a substitute for a fuel 
that does not produce any greenhouse gases when burned.

So basically in more common usage, methane that was used to generate electricity in now
used as a fuel. The characteristics of this fuel is that: it does not generate any gases that lead to global warming.

Crux: Substitute methane for electricity with methane for fuel -> Fewer greenhouse gases and hence less temp will rise.

OR

Could I have taken help of SC for grammar tense of would (if unsure) from  is used , and  when burned

Since now it implies:

Currently, the methane that  is used  to generate electricity WOULD BE USED (in past tense; to align parallelism with past tense:
burned)

So in past, we were using fuels that DID NOT generate GH gases , but now we are using substituting fuel with methane which
causes global warming and hence this is opposite answer.

rakeshtewatia0105 · Answer

Can anyone please let explain why option "c " is wrong....

If burning of meyhane doesn't produce any green house gas than objection that methane not to be burn get weaken ....

So y not "c " is correct ...

Posted from my mobile device

GMATNinja · Answer

There is an explanation for why (C) is incorrect in  this  post, take a look and let us know if you have any other questions!

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

Let’s understand the argument and the objection first.

1) Carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere block the escape of heat into space.
2) So emission of these “greenhouse” gases contributes to global warming.
3) In order to reduce global warming, the emission of greenhouse gases needs to be reduced.

Proposal/ Conclusion - Therefore, the methane now emitted from open landfills should instead be burned to produce electricity.

Objection/Counter conclusion - The burning of methane generates carbon dioxide that is released into the atmosphere.

We need to find an option that weakens the objection to the proposal.

(A) Every time a human being or other mammal exhales, there is some carbon dioxide released into the air.

The objection is against burning methane as burning methane generates carbon dioxide that is released into the atmosphere. Option A is irrelevant to the conclusion as well as the counter conclusion-  Eliminate A

(B) The conversion of methane to electricity would occur at a considerable distance from the landfills.

It doesn’t matter where the conversion occurs.  Eliminate B

(C) The methane that is used to generate electricity would generally be used as a substitute for a fuel that does not produce any greenhouse gases when burned.

The objection is that the burning of methane generates carbon dioxide that is released into the atmosphere. 
This option does not go against the objection of burning methane. It only tells us that the methane that is used to generate electricity would generally be used as a substitute for a fuel that does not produce any greenhouse gases when burned. This supports the objection and is  hence incorrect.

(D) Methane in the atmosphere is more effective in blocking the escape of heat from the Earth than is carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere block the escape of heat into space, causing global warming. 
Objection- the burning of methane generates more carbon dioxide that is released into the atmosphere

D says that Methane in the atmosphere is more effective in blocking the escape of heat from the Earth than is carbon dioxide.
This means that Methane in the atmosphere is more harmful than is CO2 as methane contributes more to global warming than CO2 does. Hence burning Methane (even if it generates C02) is better than leaving the methane in the atmosphere.  Hence option D is correct

(E) The amount of methane emitted from the landfills could be reduced if the materials whose decomposition produces methane were not discarded, but recycled.

This is totally irrelevant to the argument and the objection.  Hence incorrect.

Vishnupriya
CrackVerbal Prep Team

Dinesh654 · Answer

hello experts,
I chose C, I thought "that" is referring to substitute when i read it for the first time. 
It really is hard to catch because logically that can modify- substitute and fuel and changes the meaning completly.
How to spot this? why did I do this mistake?

MartyTargetTestPrep · Answer

Notice that the objection is the following:

Objection: The burning of methane generates carbon dioxide that is released into the atmosphere.

Reading that, we see that, when methane is burned, it produces the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.

Thus, it can't be the case that the methane that is used to generate electricity would be used as a substitute that does not produce any greenhouse gases when burned.

So, a great to way to avoid making that error is to be clear about the details of the objection.

Being careful and noticing details are key aspects of CR success.

Dinesh654 · Answer

Thank you. 
just wanted to make sure,
So, what you mean is that details/facts/premise, which are already stated can't be wrong or doubted again when we come down to choices. 
Objection that The burning of methane generates carbon dioxide that is released into the atmosphere. - should always be considered as fact. therefore any choice that restates it or goes against it will be useless. hence, "that" can't refer to substitute.

we shouldn't doubt details or facts, just like the objection was a fact here, right?

MartyTargetTestPrep · Answer

Right, what's stated in the prompt as factual is considered fact.

So, if you think a choice conflicts with what's stated in the prompt, then either you have misread the choice, what the prompt says is not meant to be taken as factual for some reason (such as that it's a conclusion or opinion rather than a fact), or the question is busted, an unlikely scenario if you are dealing with an official question.

ManojHarsha · Answer

Which of the following, if true, most adequately counters the objection made to the proposal?

Diagramming  
 Carbon dioxide and methane(Greenhouse gases) --> Block heat==> Global Warming
To reduce Global Warming <---- Greenhouse gases to be reduced
Proposal : Methane via landfill --> Burned to generate power

Objection: Burning of methane ---> Increase in the CO2

What we want to  most adequately counters the objection

Predicted Answer : It's okay to increase carbon dioxide at the cost of methane..  any choice fills such gap is our answer.

POE

(A) Every time a human being or other mammal exhales, there is some carbon dioxide released into the air.  Irrelevant

(B) The conversion of methane to electricity would occur at a considerable distance from the landfills. So what, We are not filling the gap mentioned above.

(C) The methane that is used to generate electricity would generally be used as a substitute for a fuel that does not produce any greenhouse gases when burned.  This will not weaken the objection, It actually strengthens it. Because if we are replacing some clean fuel with methane... this will increase carbon dioxide. Hence proposal is weakened

(D)  Methane in the atmosphere is more effective  in blocking the escape of heat from the Earth than is carbon dioxide.  Hmm, It's inline with our prediction  If methane is more effective in trapping the heat, Decrease in methane at the cost of CO2 will be a positive step. It will strengthen the proposal and weaken the objection.

(E) The amount of methane emitted from the landfills could be reduced if the materials whose decomposition produces methane were not discarded, but recycled. Irrelevant, We want a choice that deals with he mentioned proposal. We don't need any new proposal.

Hence D is correct answer.

Pro-Tip:   Always predict an answer or find gap before proceeding to the solutions. This will help you in eliminating the irrelevant and OFS choices easily in no time. You may need to take a pause and eliminate the left out choices in the final round(Ideally 2 - 3 will be left in case of 700+ questions).

ArnauG · Answer

A) Every time a human being or other mammal exhales, there is some carbon dioxide released into the air.
This answer choice does not provide a direct counter to the objection, as it merely presents another source of carbon dioxide emissions. Therefore, it is not the most adequate counter to the objection.

B) The conversion of methane to electricity would occur at a considerable distance from the landfills.
This answer choice is not an adequate counter to the objection because it does not address the issue of carbon dioxide emissions resulting from the burning of methane.

C) The methane that is used to generate electricity would generally be used as a substitute for a fuel that does not produce any greenhouse gases when burned.
This answer choice provides a partial counter to the objection, as it suggests that burning methane for electricity would displace the use of other greenhouse-gas-emitting fuels. However, it does not directly address the concern about carbon dioxide emissions resulting from the burning of methane.

D) Methane in the atmosphere is more effective in blocking the escape of heat from the Earth than is carbon dioxide.
This answer choice provides a direct counter to the objection by suggesting that while burning methane would release carbon dioxide, it would still have a net positive effect on reducing greenhouse gas emissions because methane is more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Therefore, this is the most adequate counter to the objection.

E) The amount of methane emitted from the landfills could be reduced if the materials whose decomposition produces methane were not discarded, but recycled.
This answer choice does not provide a direct counter to the objection, as it merely suggests a different solution to the problem of methane emissions from landfills. Therefore, it is not the most adequate counter to the objection.

achloes · Answer

OFFICIAL ANSWER

Evaluation of a Plan

Situation
The greenhouse gases methane and carbon dioxide trap heat in Earth's atmosphere and warm the planet. To reduce that global warming, emission of these gases needs to be reduced. For these reasons, someone has proposed that the methane emitted from landfills should be captured and burned to produce electricity. However, an objection to the proposal is that burning methane causes the release of carbon dioxide (another greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere.

Reasoning
What would be a logically effective response to counter the objection to the proposal? It is true that burning methane causes the release of carbon dioxide. However, if burning methane from landfills to generate electricity helps reduce net global warming, then the objection would not provide a good reason for rejecting the proposal. It turns out that, as a greenhouse gas, methane has a much more powerful impact on global warming than does carbon dioxide. This fact provides strong support for rejecting the objection to the proposal.

A
Clearly the effects referred to here are unavoidable in the lives of humans and other mammals on Earth. The emissions that must be curtailed to avoid global warming are those that are avoidable as a result of voluntary human activity.

B
This suggests that there could be costs in implementing the proposal, but the possibility of such costs does not, by itself, counter the proposal. Such costs could presumably be reduced by better siting of landfills and electricity-generation plants.

C
This information, if true, would not counter the objection and would provide some support for it. We would still need some reason to believe that allowing carbon dioxide emissions from burning methane would be better than continuing to release methane itself. In the absence of such a reason, we should expect no net greenhouse-gas-related benefit in substituting the landfill-emitted methane for a fuel that produces no greenhouse gases.

D
Correct. This information provides a strong rebuttal of the objection. Since methane has more powerful global-warming effects than does carbon dioxide, there is a net greenhouse-gas-reduction benefit in generating electricity by burning methane from landfills even though that burning itself emits the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.

E
Undoubtedly it would be better to reduce the amount of methane that landfills will generate in the future. However, the possibility of doing so tells us nothing about whether the potential emission of carbon dioxide provides a reason not to burn the methane that is currently emitted from landfills.

The correct answer is D.

VatsalParikh · Answer

The main problem that I am facing here is thatoption C seems to tell us that Methane which would otherwise be used instead of a fuel that doesnot produce greenhouse is now being used to generate electricity. So basically the methane from landfills is being used for electricity and now that other fuel that produces no greenhouse gases will be used for other purposes.

VatsalParikh · Answer

The main problem that I am facing here is thatoption C seems to tell us that Methane which would otherwise be used instead of a fuel that doesnot produce greenhouse is now being used to generate electricity. So basically the methane from landfills is being used for electricity and now that other fuel that produces no greenhouse gases will be used for other purposes.

GMATNinja · Answer

To help understand (C), think about some fixed quantity of electricity that needs to be generated. In order to generate that quantity of electricity, there are two options: 1. Burn some methane emitted from open landfills. The benefit is that the methane burned doesn't end up in the atmosphere. The downside (as pointed out in the objection), is that burning methane generates carbon dioxide that IS released into the atmosphere.2. Burn some OTHER fuel that does NOT produce any greenhouse gases when burned. With the first option, some greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide) WILL end up in the atmosphere. With the second option, NO greenhouse gas ends up in the atmosphere. So (C) actually strengthens the objection instead of countering the objection. Here's a full breakdown of this question for anyone who missed it: https://gmatclub.com/forum/proposal-car ... l#p1850417.

Proposal: Carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere block the escap

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

Proposal: Carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere block the escap

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