GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 19 Jun 2018, 07:37

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Reducing atmospheric CO2 by a deliberate carbon dioxide

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Director
Director
User avatar
P
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
Posts: 500
GPA: 4
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Reducing atmospheric CO2 by a deliberate carbon dioxide [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 04 Mar 2018, 01:11
Question 1
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Question Stats:

55% (03:35) correct 45% (02:43) wrong based on 107

HideShow timer Statistics

Question 2
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Question Stats:

37% (00:40) correct 63% (00:34) wrong based on 105

HideShow timer Statistics

Question 3
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Question Stats:

52% (00:27) correct 48% (00:49) wrong based on 97

HideShow timer Statistics

Question 4
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Question Stats:

51% (02:16) correct 49% (00:49) wrong based on 93

HideShow timer Statistics

Reducing atmospheric CO2 by a deliberate carbon dioxide removal (CDR) strategy is one option being considered for combating global warming caused by the current high levels of atmospheric CO2. Before implementation can occur, it is important to have a reference goal for a planned reduction of the global CO2 concentration against which any specific strategy can be assessed. Scientists agree that a modest aim would be to seek to reduce the CO2 concentration by 50 ppm, which is the equivalent of removing 400 gigatons of CO2,or an average of 4 GtCO2/yr over 100 years. At this substantial level of reduction, it is still expected that dangerous levels of atmospheric CO2 would persist.

Even in the limiting case in which all emissions of CO2 cease, it is not straightforward to estimate how much CO2 must be removed from the atmosphere to lower its content by 4 GtCO2 annually. During any period of zero emissions but no CDR implementation, the atmospheric CO2 concentration will fall. Ocean currents continually bring deep ocean water to the surface that was last at the surface hundreds of years before, when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was at its preindustrial value. As equilibrium is established at the ocean surface between CO2 in the air and dissolved in the ocean, such ocean water scavenges CO2 from the atmosphere. So, with a time scale of hundreds of years, some atmospheric CO2 reduction is done naturally (at the expense of growing acidity in the ocean).

The same requirement for equilibrium at the ocean surface governs the reverse effect that would happen if the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere were lowered someday by deliberate removal of CO2. There would be an immediate compensating transfer of CO2 from the ocean to the atmosphere, as a result of which it would be necessary to remove more than one unit of CO2 from the atmosphere to reduce the atmospheric CO2 content by one unit. Forest responses add complications, as do deep ocean currents. Today, the combined effect of ocean and land CO2 “sinks” results, for a time-scale measured in decades, in roughly half of the CO2 remaining in the atmosphere that was emitted to the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuel, but the future magnitudes of these sinks are uncertain.

Question1. Which of the following is listed as a natural phenomenon that would require a CDR strategy to remove CO2by an amount greater than its desired CO2 reduction target?

A) the presence of land CO2 “sinks”
B) the presence of ocean CO2 “sinks”
C) equilibrium at the ocean surface
D) deep ocean water moving to the surface
E) scavenging of CO2 by the ocean surface


Question 2. The author discusses ocean and land CO2 “sinks” in order to:

A) explain how much of the CO2 emitted by the burning of fossil fuels remains in the atmosphere

B) highlight how uncertain the future is regarding the magnitude of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels

C) highlight the challenges in determining natural effects on CO2 levels when implementing a CDR strategy

D) clarify why it would be necessary to remove more than one unit of CO2 from the atmosphere to reduce the atmospheric CO2 content by one unit

E) emphasize that there are many natural means by which CO2 is removed from the atmosphere.


Question 3. The author uses the content in the parentheses at end of the 2nd paragraph to:

A) provide additional information about how the natural process of atmospheric CO2 reduction occurs

B) emphasize the importance of a negative effect that would result from a natural process

C) highlight one result from the many natural processes related to CO2 removal

D) present a negative effect that is not directly related to the primary purpose of the paragraph

E) show the importance of natural removal of CO2 in the atmosphere


Question 4. All of the following are discussed in the passage EXCEPT:

(A) details on how CO2 will be removed from the atmosphere by a CDR strategy

(B) difficulties in measuring the effects of a CDR strategy on CO2 reduction

(C) increases in atmospheric CO2 levels resulting from natural processes

(D) decreases in atmospheric CO2 result resulting from natural processes

(E) the risk of high atmospheric levels of CO2 in the atmosphere


_________________

Give Kudos for correct answer and/or if you like the solution.


Originally posted by sahilvijay on 01 Mar 2018, 05:18.
Last edited by hazelnut on 04 Mar 2018, 01:11, edited 2 times in total.
Reformatted questions
1 KUDOS received
Wharton Thread Master
User avatar
D
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 1021
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Technology
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
GPA: 4
Re: Reducing atmospheric CO2 by a deliberate carbon dioxide [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Mar 2018, 11:08
1
Got all correct. I hope this explanation helps someone

Reducing atmospheric CO2 by a deliberate carbon dioxide removal (CDR) strategy is one option being considered for combating global warming caused by the current high levels of atmospheric CO2. Before implementation can occur, it is important to have a reference goal for a planned reduction of the global CO2 concentration against which any specific strategy can be assessed. Scientists agree that a modest aim would be to seek to reduce the CO2 concentration by 50 ppm, which is the equivalent of removing 400 gigatons of CO2,or an average of 4 GtCO2/yr over 100 years. At this substantial level of reduction, it is still expected that dangerous levels of atmospheric CO2 would persist.

Even in the limiting case in which all emissions of CO2 cease, it is not straightforward to estimate how much CO2 must be removed from the atmosphere to lower its content by 4 GtCO2 annually. During any period of zero emissions but no CDR implementation, the atmospheric CO2 concentration will fall. Ocean currents continually bring deep ocean water to the surface that was last at the surface hundreds of years before, when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was at its preindustrial value. As equilibrium is established at the ocean surface between CO2 in the air and dissolved in the ocean, such ocean water scavenges CO2 from the atmosphere. So, with a time scale of hundreds of years, some atmospheric CO2 reduction is done naturally (at the expense of growing acidity in the ocean).

The same requirement for equilibrium at the ocean surface governs the reverse effect that would happen if the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere were lowered someday by deliberate removal of CO2. There would be an immediate compensating transfer of CO2 from the ocean to the atmosphere, as a result of which it would be necessary to remove more than one unit of CO2 from the atmosphere to reduce the atmospheric CO2 content by one unit. Forest responses add complications, as do deep ocean currents. Today, the combined effect of ocean and land CO2 “sinks” results, for a time-scale measured in decades, in roughly half of the CO2 remaining in the atmosphere that was emitted to the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuel, but the future magnitudes of these sinks are uncertain.
Question1. Which of the following is listed as a natural phenomenon that would require a CDR strategy to remove CO2by an amount greater than its desired CO2 reduction target?

A) the presence of land CO2 “sinks” --Sinks reduce the Co2 levels
B) the presence of ocean CO2 “sinks” --Sinks reduce the CO2 levels
C) equilibrium at the ocean surface --Correct. If the CDR reduces CO2 then because of equilibrium oceans will release more CO2.
D) deep ocean water moving to the surface --It reduces CO2
E) scavenging of CO2 by the ocean surface --It reduces CO2


Question 2. The author discusses ocean and land CO2 “sinks” in order to:

A) explain how much of the CO2 emitted by the burning of fossil fuels remains in the atmosphere --Sinks reduce CO2

B) highlight how uncertain the future is regarding the magnitude of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels --Uncertainity id regarding the removal of CO2 not the emission from fossils

C) highlight the challenges in determining natural effects on CO2 levels when implementing a CDR strategy --COrrect. The 3 para talks about 2 challanges: equillibrium & forests+ocean sink

D) clarify why it would be necessary to remove more than one unit of CO2 from the atmosphere to reduce the atmospheric CO2 content by one unit --No. Only equillibrium causes this issue. SInks help in reducing CO2

E) emphasize that there are many natural means by which CO2 is removed from the atmosphere. --Certainly not


Question 3. The author uses the content in the parentheses at end of the 2nd paragraph to:

A) provide additional information about how the natural process of atmospheric CO2 reduction occurs --Wrong

B) emphasize the importance of a negative effect that would result from a natural process --Wrong

C) highlight one result from the many natural processes related to CO2 removal --Wrong

D) present a negative effect that is not directly related to the primary purpose of the paragraph --Correct. It is just an additional piece of information unrelated to the passage

E) show the importance of natural removal of CO2 in the atmosphere --Wrong


Question 4. All of the following are discussed in the passage EXCEPT:

(A) details on how CO2 will be removed from the atmosphere by a CDR strategy --Not discussed

(B) difficulties in measuring the effects of a CDR strategy on CO2 reduction --Talked in 3 para

(C) increases in atmospheric CO2 levels resulting from natural processes --Talked in 3 para

(D) decreases in atmospheric CO2 result resulting from natural processes --Talked in 2 para

(E) the risk of high atmospheric levels of CO2 in the atmosphere --Talked in 1 para


_________________

Kudos if my post helps!

Long And A Fruitful Journey - V21 to V41; If I can, So Can You!!


My study resources:
1. Useful Formulae, Concepts and Tricks-Quant
2. e-GMAT's ALL SC Compilation
3. LSAT RC compilation
4. Actual LSAT CR collection by Broal
5. QOTD RC (Carcass)
6. Challange OG RC
7. GMAT Prep Challenge RC

Re: Reducing atmospheric CO2 by a deliberate carbon dioxide   [#permalink] 08 Mar 2018, 11:08
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Reducing atmospheric CO2 by a deliberate carbon dioxide

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.