The Economist Reading Challenge Week 1: Article 3

Question #1. Do the successes claimed by the CA100+ contradict Tariq Fancy's claims? If so, in what way? If not, why not?
Yes contradicts beacause according to CA100+, holding shares in polluting firm is the only way to engage with business and make it change.

Question #2. List three pieces of evidence presented by The Economist to show that the CA100+ has had an effect and give a one-sentence explanation of why each supports The Economist’s claim. Explain why The Economist describes this effect as "modest".
1)Shell , BP and Total. took pledgues
2) Comparision with controlled group ; from CA100+ 30% joined SBTI and 40% signed up
The Economist describes this effect as "modest", because setting target only by small polluters. 50trn dollar shareholding ,still the impact is small.

Question #3. Suggest an INCORRECT title for the passage. Design the title so that it is as similar as possible to comparable incorrect answers in GMAT Reading Comprehension questions. Explain why the suggested title is incorrect.
INCORRECT title- Green investment best solution
Why: 1) First is is strong 2) Doesn't capture overall view of author,who says it's impact is modest.

The questions have no options to choose. Could you please add the answer choices.

STEP 1: Read The full article: The impact of green investors



Question #1. Do the successes claimed by the CA100+ contradict Tariq Fancy's claims? If so, in what way? If not, why not?

No . As per Tariq Fancy's claims , the organization puts climate change at the centre of its investment strategy. Mr Fancy called investing that takes into account esg (environmental, social and governance) factors “little more than marketing hype, pr spin and disingenuous promises”. He pointed to esg funds which invest in big polluters, such as oil firms.
This is the thinking behind Climate Action 100+ (ca100+), a global investor-engagement group, as well.


Question #2. List three pieces of evidence presented by The Economist to show that the CA100+ has had an effect and give a one-sentence explanation of why each supports The Economist’s claim. Explain why The Economist describes this effect as "modest".


-About 30% of ca100+ firms have joined the sbti, compared to around 25% in 'Economist' portfolio.
-And roughly 40% of ca100+ firms have signed up for tcfd, compared to about 30% in the control group by 'Economist'
-In both groups, the firms that set a green goal tend to be the small polluters.

As per 'Economist ' ,CA100+ , $50trn-worth of investor, pressing does not seem to result in much change backed by above stats and that is why
The Economist describes this effect as "modest"

Question #3. Suggest an INCORRECT title for the passage. Design the title so that it is as similar as possible to comparable incorrect answers in GMAT Reading Comprehension questions. Explain why the suggested title is incorrect.

-- CA100+ and Green investors engagement : Just a show off drama to the world .
Its incorrect since it used a bit of extreme word in the negative sense of not producing the effect by CA100+ and Green investors engagement. Rather the effect is there and that is only modest according to author.

Q1.

No.

Tariq Fancy's claims: "investing that takes into account ESG (environmental, social and governance) factors is “little more than marketing hype, PR spin and disingenuous promises”. He also pointed to ESG funds which invest in big polluters, such as oil firms.

The CA100+ claim that they hold shares in polluting firms to engage with the business and make it change. They also claimed credit for the announcements made by Shell, BP and Total.
However, the passage mentions that these changes would have happened anyway.

The author writes in Paragraph 6, "But it is hard to separate the impact of CA100+ from changes that would have happened anyway. Green corporate pledges are coming thick and fast. Since 2018, the number of firms that have signed up to set emission goals in accordance with the Science-Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), a consortium of NGOs which ensure firms’ green commitments are rigorous, has increased from 216 to over 1250 today. Meanwhile, firms committed to reporting data along the lines of the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), a climate-risk reporting standard favoured by regulators and investors, have grown from 580 to 1,884."

Also, in the later part of the passage we see that the author compares the portfolio of 100 large emitters engaged by CA100+ with another portfolio of 100 large emitters which are not engaged by the investor group. On judging both the groups on the 2 criterias, the results were as follows:

Firms that have joined the SBTi : CA100+ = 30% & Economist's portfolio: 25%
Firms that have signed up for TCFD: CA100+ = 40% & Economist's portfolio: 30%


On analysing the result, it is safe to say that CA100+ does not seem to have much of an impact on its large emitters portfolio when it comes to green commitments.

Also the author concludes by writing, "Still, $50trn-worth of investor pressing does not seem to result in much change."

Therefore, the successes claimed by CA100+ actually proves Tariq Fancy's claims to be true.


Q2.

Evidence 1: "In February, Shell, an Anglo-Dutch oil company, announced that it will reduce the emissions from its operations and all its products to net zero by 2050."
CA100+ has asked companies to do three things: set decarbonisation targets, disclose their climate risk and improve governance around those risks, and now 3 large oil companies, Shell, BP and Total, have made pledges to reduce emissions from their operations.

Evidence 2: "About 30% of CA100+ firms have joined the SBTi, compared to around 25% in our portfolio."
As compared to the Economist's portfolio, the percentage of firms that CA100+ firms that have joined the SBTi exceeds by 5%.

Evidence 3: "Roughly 40% of CA100+ firms have signed up for TCFD, compared to about 30% in the control group."
As compared to the Economist's portfolio, the percentage of firms that CA100+ firms that have signed up for TCFD exceeds by 10%.

The econoimist describes this effect as modest because as compared to the Economist's portfolio, the percentage of firms that CA100+ firms that have joined the SBTi exceeds by 5% and the percentage of firms that CA100+ firms that have signed up for TCFD exceeds by 10%.



Q3.

Title Suggested: "The positive impact of CA100+ as a Green Investor".

The suggested title is incorrect because the passage does not categorize the impact of CA100+ as outrightly positive. The 6th paragraph in the passage mentions, "But it is hard to separate the impact of CA100+ from changes that would have happened anyway."
And also, having mentioned all the impacts of CA100+ on its firms portfolio in the later paragraphs, the author concludes by writing, "Still, $50trn-worth of investor pressing does not seem to result in much change."

Question #1. Do the successes claimed by the CA100+ contradict Tariq Fancy's claims? If so, in what way? If not, why not?

The successes appear to contradict Tariq Fancy´s claims, but they actually don´t. The CA100+ success is very questionable, at least by now, as the artricle shows. Therefore, Tariq´s argument that this type of investments have little factual effect seems correct.

Question #2. List three pieces of evidence presented by The Economist to show that the CA100+ has had an effect and give a one-sentence explanation of why each supports The Economist’s claim. Explain why The Economist describes this effect as "modest".

-About 30% of ca100+ firms have joined the SBTI
-40% of ca100+ firms have signed up for TCFD
-Half of the ca100+ consumer-goods firms, such as Unilever and Procter & Gamble, have set targets
The Economist describes the effect as modest, since in comparison with a group of firms used as a control group and not engaged by CA100+, the firms engaged by CA100+ have not shown so far a meaningful improvement in their climate-risk disclosure and target setting.

Question #3. Suggest an INCORRECT title for the passage. Design the title so that it is as similar as possible to comparable incorrect answers in GMAT Reading Comprehension questions. Explain why the suggested title is incorrect.

"Sustainable investing on the right path"
It would be incorrect because some passages of the article may suggest this idea, but it´s not in line with the general tone and main purpose of the paragraph.

Question #1. Do the successes claimed by the CA100+ contradict Tariq Fancy's claims? If so, in what way? If not, why not?
Mr. Fancy claims that investing in oil companies isn't ecofriendly, which makes big companies who claim to be sustainable, hypocritcal. Claims by CA100+ state that they have asked these big companies who invest to set targets and recognize risks. Therefore yes, they contradict bc ca100+ claims the only way a business will change is if those who hold shares engage with it.

Question #2. List three pieces of evidence presented by The Economist to show that the CA100+ has had an effect and give a one-sentence explanation of why each supports The Economist’s claim. Explain why The Economist describes this effect as "modest".
The ca100+ has mostly asked companies to do three things: set decarbonization targets, disclose their climate risk and improve governance around those risks. Yes, Th Economist describes it as modest because some of these changes may have happened regardless due to SBTI.

Question #3. Suggest an INCORRECT title for the passage. Design the title so that it is as similar as possible to comparable incorrect answers in GMAT Reading Comprehension questions. Explain why the suggested title is incorrect.
"How big corporations are making the world greener" - this would be incorrect because it defies the authors opinion that some of the benefits would occur regardless of CA100+

Answer #1:

Mr. Fancy's claims are that he believes that the investments by the ESG funds have seen a fair share in oil companies - some of which are the top pollution-creators. However, the successes claimed by CA100+ accounting for its group of companies with over $50 Trillion worth of assets, show that quite a few names which are the world's largest oil companies have set targets for reducing their emissions and carbon footprint. In a way, Mr. Fancy's claims are contradicted because reducing emissions to near-zero for organizations that have primarily been sources of some of the most serious carbon footprints isn't a one-day job. It takes time, which is also something that CA100+ asserts, hence, claiming that the functioning of ESG funds are merely more than hype and marketing, I believe, is a false claim.


Answer #2:

Three references to support The Economist's claims are:

a. About 30% of CA100+ firms have joined the SBTi, compared to around 25% in our portfolio.
This data shows that the new group assembled by The Economist roughly matches the portfolio allocation of the CA100+ for companies that have joined the SBTi, to set their emission goals.

b. Roughly 40% of CA100+ firms have signed up for TCFD, compared to about 30% in the control group.
More or less, a fairly significant number of companies have signed up for TCFD for their climate-risk reporting.

c. By contrast almost half of the CA100+ consumer-goods firms, such as Unilever and Procter & Gamble, have set targets.
This data point by The Economist supports the efforts of CA100+ as a group, and substantiates their role in controlling environmental factors.

The research and data shared by The Economist show that even though CA100+ has shown progress in their efforts and their effects, with numbers that are still less than half of the whole can only be termed as 'modest'. Going forward, a much larger share of the companies must align their efforts in climate risk mitigation.

Question #1. Do the successes claimed by the CA100+ contradict Tariq Fancy's claims? If so, in what way? If not, why not?

Answer: No. The evidences in passage support both the initiatives taken by CA100+ and the claim made by Tariq Fancy.

Question #2. List three pieces of evidence presented by The Economist to show that the CA100+ has had an effect and give a one-sentence explanation of why each supports The Economist’s claim. Explain why The Economist describes this effect as "modest".

Answer:

1. About 30% of CA100+ firms have joined the SBTi, compared to around 25% in the portfolio made by the Economist.
2. Roughly 40% of CA100+ firms have signed up for TCFD, compared to about 30% in the control group.
3. Among CA100+ firms, those which have set targets represent about a third of the market value but only a fifth of the carbon footprint.

The above evidences show that the expected outcome is still not fully accomplished. All the companies are not responding to the call of green investing. Thus, the Economist describes this effect as "modest".

Question #3. Suggest an INCORRECT title for the passage. Design the title so that it is as similar as possible to comparable incorrect answers in GMAT Reading Comprehension questions. Explain why the suggested title is incorrect.

Answer:

Incorrect Title: CA 100+: The Savior

Why it is incorrect?

The main purpose of the passage is to describe the impact of green investor. CA100+ is cited as an example to support the main objective of the passage. An example to support the big picture of the passage can not be the primary purpose or claim to be the title of a passage.

Question #1. Do the successes claimed by the CA100+ contradict Tariq Fancy's claims? If so, in what way? If not, why not? - Yes, Tariq Fancy claims that investing in shares of polluting firms (or big polluters) ads little value but CA100+ thinks holding shares in polluting firms is that it is the only way to engage with a business and make it change, and with this CA100+ has success of 575 members and $50trn+ worth of assets.

Question #2. List three pieces of evidence presented by The Economist to show that the CA100+ has had an effect and give a one-sentence explanation of why each supports The Economist’s claim. Explain why The Economist describes this effect as "modest".
a. About 30% of ca100+ firms have joined the sbti, compared to around 25% in our portfolio. - More firms of CA100+ have joined the NGO (sbti) ensuring green commitment than the overall portlio
b. And roughly 40% of ca100+ firms have signed up for tcfd, compared to about 30% in the control group. - More firms in CA100+ have signed up for Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (tcfd) shows a positive impact
c. Among ca100+ firms, those which have set targets represent about a third of the market value but only a fifth of the carbon footprint. - This shows that the CA100+ firms represents ~30% of the market value but they are responsible for only ~20% of the carbon footprint

Question #3. Suggest an INCORRECT title for the passage. Design the title so that it is as similar as possible to comparable incorrect answers in GMAT Reading Comprehension questions. Explain why the suggested title is incorrect. - Positive impacts of green investors
This title is incorrect because the passage discusses about both negative and positive sides. It starts with negative and ends with advocating the positive effects of investing in green firms (especially CA100+, which believes in holding shares in polluting firms )

Question #1. Do the successes claimed by the CA100+ contradict Tariq Fancy's claims? If so, in what way? If not, why not?
-> Yes, there is contradiction. The CA100+ claimed the success of convincing some polluters to pledge for reducing emission in future. Moreover, the CA100+ has tried to justify the engagement with major polluters. But the reality is different. Tariq Fancy expressed that the use of sustainable investing is limited to marketing purpose. There is no significant change to the existing funds or the funds' strategies. They are branding the existing products in the name of sustainable investing.

Question #2. List three pieces of evidence presented by The Economist to show that the CA100+ has had an effect and give a one-sentence explanation of why each supports The Economist’s claim. Explain why The Economist describes this effect as "modest".
-> Three pieces of evidence are climate-risk disclosure, target setting, and criteria setting
Climate-risk disclosure: About 30% of CA100+ firms have joined the SBTi to set emission goal.
Target setting: About 40% of CA100+ firms have signed up for TCFD to report disclosure related data.
Criteria setting: The CA100+ announced a set of criteria to judge the progress of the firms
-> The Economist has created a portfolio of 100 firms which are not engaged with the CA100+ and found that the percentage of CA100+ firms which have followed the target setting and disclosure criteria is slightly more than that of the portfolio. As the difference is not significant, the Economist describes the effect as modest.

Question #3. Suggest an INCORRECT title for the passage. Design the title so that it is as similar as possible to comparable incorrect answers in GMAT Reading Comprehension questions. Explain why the suggested title is incorrect.

-> Incorrect Title: The positive impact of green investors
-> Adding a keyword with the title makes it inconsistent. Moreover, the passage is not focusing on the positive impact of green investors, rather focusing on the duplicity of actions of green investor. We can say, the author's tone is slightly negative in this case.

Question #1. Do the successes claimed by the CA100+ contradict Tariq Fancy's claims? If so, in what way? If not, why not?

- Yes, they did. According to Tariq Fancy, ESG funds had minimal impact because they primarily factored marketing and PR spins. However, CA100+ contradicted this, when they claimed that they created huge impact by investing in the biggest polluting firms and influencing them to make resolutions to reduce emissions. For example, CA100+ claimed that their investments in Shell, BP, and Total (big oil groups and emitters) resulted in pledges to net zero emissions in the future.

Question #2. List three pieces of evidence presented by The Economist to show that the CA100+ has had an effect and give a one-sentence explanation of why each supports The Economist’s claim. Explain why The Economist describes this effect as "modest".

- First, The Economist cited that 30% of CA100+ firms joined SBTI. This showed that CA100+ had an effect because it had 5% more firms in a rigorously green consortium, compared to the Economist's portfolio.

Second, The Economist cited that 40% of CA100+ firms joined TCFD. This showed that CA100+ had an effect because it had 10% more firms complying with climate-risk reporting standards, compared to the Economist's portfolio.

Lastly, The Economist cited that almost half of the CA100+ consumer goods firms had created pledges. This showed that CA100+ had an effect because its stake influenced its consumer goods firms to target a reduction in their emissions.

The Economist described this as a "modest" effect because despite the massive investment of $50tn, most of the CA100+ firms with pledges were the small polluters, who only comprised 1/5 of the portfolio's carbon footprint, despite having 1/3 of the market value.

Question #3. Suggest an INCORRECT title for the passage. Design the title so that it is as similar as possible to comparable incorrect answers in GMAT Reading Comprehension questions. Explain why the suggested title is incorrect

An incorrect title is "Green investors do not impact carbon emissions reductions." This is incorrect because Economist still cites examples of incremental impact, albeit small.

Question 1 - Do the successes claimed by the CA100+ contradict Tariq Fancy's claims? If so, in what way? If not, why not?

- Successes claimed by the CA100+ do not contradict the claims of "low impact of ESG investing" by Tariq Fancy as the article itself provides evidence that the impact of CA100+ is modest in nature - hard to differentiate whether such changes would have happened anyway (control group example) and the article itself provides anecdotes by the advocates of ca100+ who say that CA100+ will take more time for the benefits to show.

Question 2 - Three pieces of evidence presented by The Economist to show that the CA100+ has had an effect and give a one-sentence explanation of why each supports The Economist’s claim.

(i) The ca100+ has notched up some successes. In February Shell, an Anglo-Dutch oil company, announced that it will reduce the emissions from its operations and all its products to net zero by 2050. [Reason to support the claim that CA100+ does not result in much change is the fact that "such changes would have happened anyway"].

(ii) About 30% of ca100+ firms have joined the sbti, compared to around 25% in our portfolio and (iii) roughly 40% of ca100+ firms have signed up for tcfd, compared to about 30% in the control group. [Reason to support the claim that CA100+ does not result in much change is the fact that "firms that set a green goal tend to be the small polluters"]

Why the effect looks modest - is because CA100+ is a $50trn-worth of investor group which includes asset owners, such as Japan’s Government Pension Investment Fund, as well as asset managers. But still its impact is hard to be differentiated from changes that would have happened anyway as demonstrated by the control group example and the argument laid down by Stephanie Pfeifer, of ca100+ that some firms outside the group’s focus have seen the pressure from ca100+ and have started acting which further corroborates lack of impact / modest impact.


Question 3 - Wrong Title of the passage - Sustainable Impact of CA100+

The aforementioned title of the passage is incorrect as the author of the article provides the following line of criticism:

(i) On comparing the actual effect of CA100+ on companies in its portfolio against a portfolio created by the author (having the same parameters as set by CA100+) the effect of CA 100+ looked modest at best.

(ii) The author passes an undertone of non-impact of CA 100+ - when he says that it is hard to separate the impact of ca100+ from changes that would have happened anyway.

We are closing the submissions. Competition mode is off now and everyone can see each other's responses. We will evaluate your responses and announce the winner on Monday. New articles will be published on Tuesday 20th April, Stay Tuned!

Thank you

Question #1. Do the successes claimed by the CA100+ contradict Tariq Fancy's claims? If so, in what way? If not, why not?
No, because from paragraph 5, The ca100+ has notched up some successes. In February Shell, an Anglo-Dutch oil company, announced that it will reduce the emissions from its operations and all its products to net zero by 2050. The ca100+ claimed much credit for that, as it did for similar pledges made by bp and Total, two other oil groups.

Question #2. List three pieces of evidence presented by The Economist to show that the CA100+ has had an effect and give a one-sentence explanation of why each supports The Economist’s claim. Explain why The Economist describes this effect as "modest".
1. sectors and regions represented
2. climate-risk disclosure
3. target setting
give a one-sentence explanation of why each supports The Economist’s claim.
Ans.
To measure the actual effect of the ca100+, The Economist has created a portfolio of about 100 firms that are large emitters but are not engaged by the investor group.

why The Economist describes this effect as "modest".
Ans:
1. About 30% of ca100+ firms have joined the sbti, compared to around 25% in our portfolio.
2. And roughly 40% of ca100+ firms have signed up for tcfd, compared to about 30% in the control group.

Question #3. Suggest an INCORRECT title for the passage. Design the title so that it is as similar as possible to comparable incorrect answers in GMAT Reading Comprehension questions. Explain why the suggested title is incorrect.
"The result of the Economists' experiment"
Why: This title is just partly presented from the passage and it cannot cover all the content of the passage.

Not in time for competition, but want to add some opinions here.

Question #1. Do the successes claimed by the CA100+ contradict Tariq Fancy's claims? If so, in what way? If not, why not?

No, they get along with each other in concerning with climate change or environmental effects.
Tariq Fancy's claim : It puts climate change at the centre of its investment strategy.
the CA100+'s claim : The ca100+ has mostly asked companies to do three things: set decarbonisation targets, disclose their climate risk and improve governance around those risks.

Question #2. List three pieces of evidence presented by The Economist to show that the CA100+ has had an effect and give a one-sentence explanation of why each supports The Economist’s claim. Explain why The Economist describes this effect as "modest".

The portfolio roughly matches the ca100+ firms in terms of sectors and regions represented. Judged by two criteria, climate-risk disclosure and target setting, the impact of ca100+ looks modest.
#1 : About 30% of ca100+ firms have joined the sbti, compared to around 25% in our portfolio.
#2 : Roughly 40% of ca100+ firms have signed up for tcfd, compared to about 30% in the control group.
#3 : Among ca100+ firms, those which have set targets represent about a third of the market value but only a fifth of the carbon footprint.

Question #3. Suggest an INCORRECT title for the passage. Design the title so that it is as similar as possible to comparable incorrect answers in GMAT Reading Comprehension questions. Explain why the suggested title is incorrect.

INCORRECT title : Many businesses are shifting focus from making profits to saving the environment.
Out of scope because the passage doesn't talk about the shifting focus of businesses or making any profits.

THANKS!

Gmat ninja
Souvik
Can yu plz explain the ist question of this passage
Does climate 100+ contradicts fancy s claims or not?

Posted from my mobile device