Scientists warn of a global warming, a "greenhouse effect" resulting f

Question

Scientists warn of a global warming, a "greenhouse effect" resulting from increased atmospheric pollutants, including carbon dioxide from the burning of wood, coal, and oil. A coal-industry spokesperson says that the effect need not cause concern in the near future if, as some scientists believe, the Earth faces another ice age within the next thousand years, since each calamity could cancel out tIle other.

Which of the following, if true, casts the most serious doubt on the conclusion of the spokesperson?

(A) There is a generally cyclical pattern in the recurrence of ice ages on Earth.

(B) The disastrous results of the greenhouse effect have begun to occur and will probably intensify within the next fifty years.

(C) Trees absorb some of the carbon dioxide in the lower atmosphere and produce oxygen, which is not a pollutant.

(D) Much of the carbon dioxide currently being produced comes not from coal but from the burning of trees cleared from large areas of tropical rain forest.

(E) The greenhouse effect is a scientific conjecture based on incomplete data about gases in the upper atmosphere and on a theory about how those gases could affect the heat from the Sun.

PyjamaScientist · Answer

Coming from a petrochemical industry, I would be lying if I said, I haven't heard this very argument through my peers.

The fallacy on which this very statement is based upon is- "Coinciding the two events in a similar period".

What if the ice age occurs way after the world has already been decimated by the adverse effects of the "Global warming"?

(B)  throws light on this. If the disastrous results of the greenhouse effect have  begun to occur  and will probably  intensify within the next fifty years  then hoping for the ice-age to cancel out the effects of "Global warming" within the next thousand years would be not so smart.

Chanchal2809 · Answer

Why the Answer is B??Please Explain in Detail

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

Chanchal2809

The argument is based on the very shaky logic that because we may have an ice age in the next thousand years, it will "cancel out" any effects of global warming. There are several flaws here; for instance, what if global warming prevents an ice age, or what if they don't really cancel each other out? However, another major flaw is the timeline. Imagine that I said you don't have to worry about dying of any of the common ailments of today, because in the next thousand years, medicine will advance enough to cure all these ailments. For that to be helpful, you'd need to live long enough to see those advances, right? If you only have a century or so to live, "the next thousand years" may not sound very promising.

So that's what B addresses. It says the effects of global warming are already happening *right now* and will increase in the near future. Without any evidence that an ice age will kick in right away, it's hard to conclude that we don't need to worry about global warming.

I hope that helps! Feel free to follow up if you have specific questions.

Scientists warn of a global warming, a "greenhouse effect" resulting f

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

Scientists warn of a global warming, a "greenhouse effect" resulting f

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