Last visit was: 21 Apr 2026, 02:47 It is currently 21 Apr 2026, 02:47
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
 1   2   3   
805+ (Hard)|   Assumption|               
User avatar
generis
User avatar
Senior SC Moderator
Joined: 22 May 2016
Last visit: 18 Jun 2022
Posts: 5,258
Own Kudos:
37,722
 [412]
Given Kudos: 9,464
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 5,258
Kudos: 37,722
 [412]
Economist: Even with energy conservation efforts, current technologies Updated on: 21 Aug 2024, 02:41
Originally posted by generis on 22 Apr 2020, 01:29.
Last edited by Bunuel on 21 Aug 2024, 02:41, edited 2 times in total.
31
Kudos
Add Kudos
380
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
00:00
Start Timer
Pause Timer
Resume Timer
Show Answer
Hide
Show
History
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

46% (02:18) correct 54% (02:43) wrong based on 7797 sessions

History

Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Economist: Even with energy conservation efforts, current technologies cannot support both a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and an expanding global economy. Attempts to restrain emissions without new technology will stifle economic growth. Therefore, increases in governmental spending on research into energy technology will be necessary if we wish to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth.

Which of the following is an assumption the economist's argument requires?

(A) If research into energy technology does not lead to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, then economic growth will be stifled.

(B) Increased governmental spending on research into energy technology will be more likely to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling growth than will nongovernmental spending.

(C) An expanding global economy may require at least some governmental spending on research into energy technology.

(D) Attempts to restrain carbon dioxide emissions without new technology could ultimately cost more than the failure to reduce those emissions would cost.

(E) Restraining carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth would require both new energy technology and energy conservation efforts.

Show Spoiler
ID: 500108
CR50611.02­
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
B
Every tricky question should trigger a follow up quiz. Build that habit with GMAT Club Forum Quiz →.
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 20 Apr 2026
Posts: 16,438
Own Kudos:
79,369
 [84]
Given Kudos: 484
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,438
Kudos: 79,369
 [84]
Economist: Even with energy conservation efforts, current technologies Updated on: 13 Nov 2023, 07:18
Originally posted by KarishmaB on 21 Jul 2020, 06:50.
Last edited by KarishmaB on 13 Nov 2023, 07:18, edited 1 time in total.
64
Kudos
Add Kudos
20
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
generis
Economist: Even with energy conservation efforts, current technologies cannot support both a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and an expanding global economy. Attempts to restrain emissions without new technology will stifle economic growth. Therefore, increases in governmental spending on research into energy technology will be necessary if we wish to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth.

Which of the following is an assumption the economist's argument requires?


A) If research into energy technology does not lead to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, then economic growth will be stifled.

B) Increased governmental spending on research into energy technology will be more likely to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling growth than will nongovernmental spending.

C) An expanding global economy may require at least some governmental spending on research into energy technology.

D) Attempts to restrain carbon dioxide emissions without new technology could ultimately cost more than the failure to reduce those emissions would cost.

E) Restraining carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth would require both new energy technology and energy conservation efforts.

CR50611.02
Show more

Check out the video solution here: https://youtu.be/0j4tovGifIg

- Current technologies cannot support both a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and an expanding global economy.
- Attempts to restrain emissions without new technology will stifle economic growth.

Conclusion: Increases in governmental spending on research into energy technology will be necessary if we wish to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth.

This is what the argument is saying - Current tech cannot support both A and B. If we try to do A, B will not happen.
So increase in govt spending in new tech is necessary for both A and B to happen.

Now, what is the assumption here? Think about it. If we were to conclude that new tech is necessary for A and B to happen together, that would make perfect sense. We need no assumption for that. Then why do we need an assumption? Because the conclusion is saying that increased govt spending in new tech is necessary. This means we are assuming that new tech cannot come without increased govt spending. So we are assuming that non govt spending and current level of govt spending will not lead to this new tech.

(B) Increased Govt spending will more likely give this new tech than non govt spending.
Yes, we are assuming this for sure. In fact, we are assuming something even stronger than this - not just 'more likely' but 'necessary'.

If we negate it:
Increased Govt spending is not more likely to give this new tech than non govt spending.

Now our conclusion doesn't make sense. If this were true, why would increased govt spending be necessary?

Hence (B) is correct.
User avatar
fiftyoneverbal
User avatar
Joined: 08 May 2015
Last visit: 15 Jul 2020
Posts: 41
Own Kudos:
250
 [36]
Given Kudos: 3
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
Posts: 41
Kudos: 250
 [36]
Economist: Even with energy conservation efforts, current technologies 22 Apr 2020, 10:16
25
Kudos
Add Kudos
10
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
This argument states that to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth, new technology will need to be developed.

To do this, the argument states that "increases in governmental spending on research into energy technology will be necessary"


The connection between "new technology will need to be developed" and "increases in governmental spending on research into energy technology will be necessary" is an assumption: the assumption that government spending is needed to develop the new technology (rather than other ways of developing the technology).

(b) is the only statement with addresses this assumption, and is the right answer.
User avatar
MartyMurray
User avatar
Joined: 11 Aug 2023
Last visit: 20 Apr 2026
Posts: 1,830
Own Kudos:
7,079
 [4]
Given Kudos: 209
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 1,830
Kudos: 7,079
 [4]
Economist: Even with energy conservation efforts, current technologies 18 Jan 2025, 19:55
4
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Economist: Even with energy conservation efforts, current technologies cannot support both a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and an expanding global economy. Attempts to restrain emissions without new technology will stifle economic growth. Therefore, increases in governmental spending on research into energy technology will be necessary if we wish to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth.

The economist's conclusion is the following:

increases in governmental spending on research into energy technology will be necessary if we wish to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth

The support for the conclusion is the following:

Even with energy conservation efforts, current technologies cannot support both a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and an expanding global economy. Attempts to restrain emissions without new technology will stifle economic growth.

One thing that may jump out at us about this argument is that the premises are about "current technologies" and "attempts to restrain emission" whereas the conclusion is about "increases in governmental spending." So, the topics of the premises and the conclusion are quite different. In other words, there's a blatant gap between the premises and the conclusion.

Which of the following is an assumption the economist's argument requires?

This is an Assumption question, and the correct answer will be a statement that must be true for the premises about current technologies and attempts to restrain emissions to effectively support the conclusion about increases in government spending.

(A) If research into energy technology does not lead to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, then economic growth will be stifled.

The argument involves the idea that new technology is necessary "if we wish to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth."

At the same time, what the argument says implies that there's another possible way for economic growth not to be stifled. There could simply be no "attempts to restrain emissions." After all, if there are no attempts to restrain emissions, then economic growth may not be stifled even without research into energy technology that leads to a reduction in emissions.

So, the argument does not assume that "If research into energy technology does not lead to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, then economic growth will be stifled," since, given what the argument says, economic growth may not be stifled even without new technology as long as there are no attempts to restrain emissions.

Eliminate.

(B) Increased governmental spending on research into energy technology will be more likely to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling growth than will nongovernmental spending.

This choice is interesting.

After all, if increased governmental spending on research into energy technology would NOT be more likely to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling growth than will nongovernmental spending, then the premises may not support the conclusion.

After all, in that case, nongovernmental spending on research into energy technology would be just as likely to serve to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth as government spending.

In that case, even though the premises about "current technologies" and "attempts to restrain emission" are true, the conclusion about "increases in governmental spending" may not be.

After all, in that case, increases in governmental spending on research into energy technology are NOT likely be necessary for reducing carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth because nongovernmental spending is likely to be able to play that role instead.

So, for the premises to effectively support the conclusion, this choice must be true.

Keep.

(C) An expanding global economy may require at least some governmental spending on research into energy technology.

This topic of this choice is different from the topic of the argument.

The conclusion of the argument is about what will be necessary "if we wish to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth."

This choice is about what may be necessary for "an expanding global economy."

Arriving at the conclusion that government spending is necessary for reducing carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth does not require assuming that government spending may be required for an expanding global economy in general.

After all, even if government spending is not required for an expanding global economy in general, it may be necessary for reducing carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth.

Eliminate.

(D) Attempts to restrain carbon dioxide emissions without new technology could ultimately cost more than the failure to reduce those emissions would cost.

The argument is about what "will be necessary if we wish to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth."

It's not about the "cost" of "attempts to restrain carbon dioxide emissions without new technology."

What will be necessary for reducing carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth does not depend on the cost of attempts to restrain carbon dioxide emissions without new technology.

So, the argument works regardless of whether this choice is true.

Eliminate.

(E) Restraining carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth would require both new energy technology and energy conservation efforts.

This choice basically conflicts with the conclusion of the argument.

The conclusion is that "increases in governmental spending on research into energy technology will be necessary."

The conclusion is not that "both new energy technology and energy conservation efforts" will be necessary.

So, the argument does not involve the assumption that "Restraining carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth would require both new energy technology and energy conservation efforts." Rather, it depends on the premise that restraining carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth would require new energy technology only.

Eliminate.

Correct answer: B
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 20 Apr 2026
Posts: 16,438
Own Kudos:
79,369
Given Kudos: 484
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,438
Kudos: 79,369
Economist: Even with energy conservation efforts, current technologies 13 Nov 2023, 07:19
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
generis
Economist: Even with energy conservation efforts, current technologies cannot support both a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and an expanding global economy. Attempts to restrain emissions without new technology will stifle economic growth. Therefore, increases in governmental spending on research into energy technology will be necessary if we wish to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth.

Which of the following is an assumption the economist's argument requires?


A) If research into energy technology does not lead to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, then economic growth will be stifled.

B) Increased governmental spending on research into energy technology will be more likely to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling growth than will nongovernmental spending.

C) An expanding global economy may require at least some governmental spending on research into energy technology.

D) Attempts to restrain carbon dioxide emissions without new technology could ultimately cost more than the failure to reduce those emissions would cost.

E) Restraining carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth would require both new energy technology and energy conservation efforts.

CR50611.02
Show more


Here is a video solution to this problem:

General Discussion
avatar
masterofn0ne
avatar
Joined: 22 Apr 2020
Last visit: 22 Apr 2020
Posts: 3
Own Kudos:
6
 [5]
Posts: 3
Kudos: 6
 [5]
Economist: Even with energy conservation efforts, current technologies 22 Apr 2020, 20:08
4
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I don't think I'm 100% correct but the answer D works best for me.
User avatar
arvind910619
User avatar
Joined: 20 Dec 2015
Last visit: 18 Oct 2024
Posts: 815
Own Kudos:
615
 [9]
Given Kudos: 755
Status:Learning
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V36
GRE 1: Q157 V157
GPA: 3.4
WE:Engineering (Manufacturing)
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V36
GRE 1: Q157 V157
Posts: 815
Kudos: 615
 [9]
Economist: Even with energy conservation efforts, current technologies 22 Apr 2020, 23:30
9
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
masterofn0ne
I don't think I'm 100% correct but the answer D works best for me.
Show more
Hi my friend,

D is not the answer.
We have to find the assumption. Nowhere in the passage we are concerned about cost. The link is between government funding for research and expanding technology.
So C is the best answer.
D is just a paraphrase of the statement in the argument "Attempts to restrain emissions without new technology will stifle economic growth". We already know that economy will suffer.

B on the other hand is the required assumption.
User avatar
David nguyen
User avatar
Joined: 15 May 2017
Last visit: 18 Aug 2020
Posts: 132
Own Kudos:
139
 [1]
Given Kudos: 132
Status:Discipline & Consistency always beats talent
Location: United States (CA)
GPA: 3.59
WE:Sales (Retail: E-commerce)
Posts: 132
Kudos: 139
 [1]
Economist: Even with energy conservation efforts, current technologies 24 Apr 2020, 22:36
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
fiftyoneverbal
This argument states that to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth, new technology will need to be developed.

To do this, the argument states that "increases in governmental spending on research into energy technology will be necessary"


The connection between "new technology will need to be developed" and "increases in governmental spending on research into energy technology will be necessary" is an assumption: the assumption that government spending is needed to develop the new technology (rather than other ways of developing the technology).

(b) is the only statement with addresses this assumption, and is the right answer.
Show more

How is (B) correct. Isn't it Mistaken Reversal?

The reasoning presented an if statement. That is:
"If we wish to reduce CO2 w/o stifling economic growth -> increases in gov spending"

(B) says:
"Increase gov spending -> likely to reduce CO2 w/o stifling the economic growth"
User avatar
fiftyoneverbal
User avatar
Joined: 08 May 2015
Last visit: 15 Jul 2020
Posts: 41
Own Kudos:
250
 [13]
Given Kudos: 3
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
Posts: 41
Kudos: 250
 [13]
Economist: Even with energy conservation efforts, current technologies 25 Apr 2020, 00:14
12
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
David nguyen
fiftyoneverbal
This argument states that to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth, new technology will need to be developed.

To do this, the argument states that "increases in governmental spending on research into energy technology will be necessary"


The connection between "new technology will need to be developed" and "increases in governmental spending on research into energy technology will be necessary" is an assumption: the assumption that government spending is needed to develop the new technology (rather than other ways of developing the technology).

(b) is the only statement with addresses this assumption, and is the right answer.

How is (B) correct. Isn't it Mistaken Reversal?

The reasoning presented an if statement. That is:
"If we wish to reduce CO2 w/o stifling economic growth -> increases in gov spending"

(B) says:
"Increase gov spending -> likely to reduce CO2 w/o stifling the economic growth"
Show more


This is tricky, but it’s not saying increased govt spending -> likely to reduce c02, it’s saying increased govt spending -> more likely to reduce c02 without stifling than non-governmental.

This is an assumption the argument requires, because the argument is saying there MUST be government spending. However, if there was a Non-government way to reduce c02 without stifling growth, then we don’t NEED government spending. For this argument to be valid, there is a required assumption that non-governmental ways will definitely NOT work. If non-governmental ways definitely don’t work, then by definition, government spending is more likely to work.

Hope that helps

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
itspCv2
User avatar
Joined: 06 May 2020
Last visit: 18 Jun 2021
Posts: 32
Own Kudos:
115
 [8]
Given Kudos: 11
Location: India
Schools: HEC '22
Schools: HEC '22
Posts: 32
Kudos: 115
 [8]
Economist: Even with energy conservation efforts, current technologies 10 May 2020, 01:47
6
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
generis
Economist: Even with energy conservation efforts, current technologies cannot support both a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and an expanding global economy. Attempts to restrain emissions without new technology will stifle economic growth. Therefore, increases in governmental spending on research into energy technology will be necessary if we wish to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth.

Which of the following is an assumption the economist's argument requires?


A) If research into energy technology does not lead to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, then economic growth will be stifled.

B) Increased governmental spending on research into energy technology will be more likely to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling growth than will nongovernmental spending.

C) An expanding global economy may require at least some governmental spending on research into energy technology.

D) Attempts to restrain carbon dioxide emissions without new technology could ultimately cost more than the failure to reduce those emissions would cost.

E) Restraining carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth would require both new energy technology and energy conservation efforts.

CR50611.02
Show more

OK ! Really liked this question :D

TARGET: Find Assumption of arguement.
Pre-think: Something should support his conclusion and bridge gap between premise and conclusion.


Jumped into options... I find this a bit messy>>> let's try negation technique on red marked words in options

A)Will not be shifted >> doesn't hurt the conclusion

B)will not be more likely >> >> does hurt the conclusion>> let's keep it

C)may not require >> doesn't hurt the conclusion

D) could not ultimately cost >> doesn't hurt the conclusion

E) would not require both >> doesn't hurt the conclusion

Therefore OA: B

Hope this helps

Go through CR Bible it really helps

THANKS. :thumbsup:
avatar
Shobhit7
avatar
Joined: 01 Feb 2017
Last visit: 29 Apr 2021
Posts: 239
Own Kudos:
432
 [11]
Given Kudos: 148
Posts: 239
Kudos: 432
 [11]
Economist: Even with energy conservation efforts, current technologies 19 May 2020, 07:16
9
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Premises:
1) CURRENT TECHNOLOGY + conservation methods: can support only one of the two conditions: either reduce emissions or sustain economic growth.

2) NO TECHNOLOGY +use conservation methods alone: can support only one condition: CO2 emissions, economic growth will suffer.

Issue on hand:
So, we need a condition by which we can achieve both the objectives: Reduce CO2 emissions and sustain economic growth.

Author’s solution / conclusion: Increase government spending on research of NEW TECHNOLOGY is necessary.

Assumption: The word “necessary” means that there is no alternative to “Increase in spending by the government on new technology”.

B) Increased governmental spending on research into energy technology “will be more likely to” reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling growth than will nongovernmental spending.:
Correct, Increased governmental spending on research into energy technology is a necessary condition. No other measures can substitute this condition.
NT: “will be LESS likely to” breaks the conclusion regarding “a necessary condition”. If the non-governmental spending can address both the issues, then governmental spending is no more a necessary condition.

Other Answer Choices:

A) If research into energy technology does not lead to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, then economic growth will be stifled.:
Cannot challenge the facts stated in the stimulus: Research into energy technology will lead to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

C) An expanding global economy may require at least some governmental spending on research into energy technology.:
Partial Scope: Not just expanding global economy but also reduction in CO2 emission require some governmental spending.

D) Attempts to restrain carbon dioxide emissions without new technology could ultimately cost more than the failure to reduce those emissions would cost.:
Irrelevant Comparison, addressing only the CO2 emission issue: Cost comparison- With or without new technology.

E) Restraining carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth would require both new energy technology and energy conservation efforts.:
May be, but the conclusion is not addressing energy conservation efforts. It is simply stating governmental spending on new technology as a necessary condition.
avatar
DhruvSeth123
avatar
Joined: 24 Apr 2019
Last visit: 06 Oct 2020
Posts: 3
Own Kudos:
4
 [1]
Given Kudos: 161
Posts: 3
Kudos: 4
 [1]
Economist: Even with energy conservation efforts, current technologies 19 Jun 2020, 11:34
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hey Experts,

Can you please help me with this question?

My logic

Conclusion: Increases in governmental spending on research into energy technology will be necessary to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth.

Premise: Attempts to restrain emissions without new technology will stifle economic growth.

My reasons for elimination:

Option C: "Some" does not quantify anything in assumption questions. It may be $1 or $100,000,000... The sentence also uses may.. Assumption should strengthen without fail. This is a possibility (Incorrect)

Option D: We are not concerned about cost. Economic growth and cost are two different things; (Incorrect)

Option E: Energy conversations efforts have not been talked about. So this becomes out of scope.

I went for option A. Can you please tell me why is the same wrong and why is B the correct answer? When I tried to negate the answer choice. Option A makes perfect sense since on negation it breaks the conclusion.
User avatar
CrackverbalGMAT
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Last visit: 19 Apr 2026
Posts: 4,846
Own Kudos:
9,179
 [3]
Given Kudos: 226
Affiliations: CrackVerbal
Location: India
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,846
Kudos: 9,179
 [3]
Economist: Even with energy conservation efforts, current technologies 22 Jun 2020, 23:45
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
DhruvSeth123
Hey Experts,

Can you please help me with this question?

My logic

Conclusion: Increases in governmental spending on research into energy technology will be necessary to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth.

Premise: Attempts to restrain emissions without new technology will stifle economic growth.

My reasons for elimination:

Option C: "Some" does not quantify anything in assumption questions. It may be $1 or $100,000,000... The sentence also uses may.. Assumption should strengthen without fail. This is a possibility (Incorrect)

Option D: We are not concerned about cost. Economic growth and cost are two different things; (Incorrect)

Option E: Energy conversations efforts have not been talked about. So this becomes out of scope.

I went for option A. Can you please tell me why is the same wrong and why is B the correct answer? When I tried to negate the answer choice. Option A makes perfect sense since on negation it breaks the conclusion.
Show more

Hi Dhruv

Let us analyze the stimulus given.

Conclusion: Increases in governmental spending on research into energy technology will be necessary if we wish to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth.

Premises (Why?):

i) Attempts to restrain emissions without new technology will stifle economic growth.
ii) Current technologies cannot support both a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and an expanding global economy.

Therefore, currently, it is a choice between restraining emissions and economic growth - we cannot have both. In order to have both, improvements in technology are necessary for which government spending is necessary.

Clearly, a link is being drawn between improvements in technology and government spending, which is the underlying assumption for this conclusion. Option (B) brings out this point clearly and hence is the correct answer.

Let us analyze option (A): If research into energy technology does not lead to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, then economic growth will be stifled.

Negation: If research into energy technology does not lead to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, then economic growth will not be stifled.

This is something that we already know from the stimulus - if emissions are not reduced, economic growth will not be stifled. This does not negate the conclusion in any way, and hence is not an underlying assumption for this conclusion.

Hope this helps.
avatar
DhruvSeth123
avatar
Joined: 24 Apr 2019
Last visit: 06 Oct 2020
Posts: 3
Own Kudos:
4
 [3]
Given Kudos: 161
Posts: 3
Kudos: 4
 [3]
Economist: Even with energy conservation efforts, current technologies 23 Jun 2020, 06:09
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
CrackVerbalGMAT
DhruvSeth123
Hey Experts,

Can you please help me with this question?

My logic

Conclusion: Increases in governmental spending on research into energy technology will be necessary to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth.

Premise: Attempts to restrain emissions without new technology will stifle economic growth.

My reasons for elimination:

Option C: "Some" does not quantify anything in assumption questions. It may be $1 or $100,000,000... The sentence also uses may.. Assumption should strengthen without fail. This is a possibility (Incorrect)

Option D: We are not concerned about cost. Economic growth and cost are two different things; (Incorrect)

Option E: Energy conversations efforts have not been talked about. So this becomes out of scope.

I went for option A. Can you please tell me why is the same wrong and why is B the correct answer? When I tried to negate the answer choice. Option A makes perfect sense since on negation it breaks the conclusion.

Hi Dhruv

Let us analyze the stimulus given.

Conclusion: Increases in governmental spending on research into energy technology will be necessary if we wish to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth.

Premises (Why?):

i) Attempts to restrain emissions without new technology will stifle economic growth.
ii) Current technologies cannot support both a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and an expanding global economy.

Therefore, currently, it is a choice between restraining emissions and economic growth - we cannot have both. In order to have both, improvements in technology are necessary for which government spending is necessary.

Clearly, a link is being drawn between improvements in technology and government spending, which is the underlying assumption for this conclusion. Option (B) brings out this point clearly and hence is the correct answer.

Let us analyze option (A): If research into energy technology does not lead to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, then economic growth will be stifled.

Negation: If research into energy technology does not lead to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, then economic growth will not be stifled.

This is something that we already know from the stimulus - if emissions are not reduced, economic growth will not be stifled. This does not negate the conclusion in any way, and hence is not an underlying assumption for this conclusion.

Hope this helps.
Show more

In Option B why is Govt. spending being compared to non-govt. spending? Source of funding is never compared in the argument so this should be irrelevant.
User avatar
SiffyB
User avatar
Joined: 23 Jan 2019
Last visit: 10 Dec 2021
Posts: 164
Own Kudos:
339
 [6]
Given Kudos: 79
Location: India
Posts: 164
Kudos: 339
 [6]
Economist: Even with energy conservation efforts, current technologies 30 Jun 2020, 10:18
6
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
DhruvSeth123


In Option B why is Govt. spending being compared to non-govt. spending? Source of funding is never compared in the argument so this should be irrelevant.
Show more

Hi DhruvSeth123,

The conclusion of the argument is that government spending is necessary to bring about the said changes. This means that there is NO OTHER WAY to achieve this result other than the government taking up this initiative.

Now think....what if some other non-governmental organization can do the same job and fetch the exact same results for us? The conclusion would definitely not hold water in such a scenario, right?
User avatar
abhishekmayank
User avatar
Joined: 26 Apr 2016
Last visit: 28 Jan 2024
Posts: 198
Own Kudos:
61
Given Kudos: 6
GMAT 1: 640 Q44 V33
GMAT 1: 640 Q44 V33
Posts: 198
Kudos: 61
Economist: Even with energy conservation efforts, current technologies 17 Jul 2020, 10:45
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Although it is an official question, I am not satisfied with the option B :

B) Increased governmental spending on research into energy technology will be more likely to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling growth than will nongovernmental spending.

Suppose we negate the option B as such :

Increased governmental spending on research into energy technology will be EQUALLY or LESS likely to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling growth than will nongovernmental spending.

Case 1 : Less likely. Of course, the conclusion breaks as the government spending is not necessary
Case 2: Equally likely. Of course, the conclusion doesn't break as both government and non-gov support are necessary

If the negation of the statement in option B breaks the conclusion partly, how can it be a correct option ?

Experts kindly help.

GMATNinja
VeritasKarishma MentorTutoring

Still, I think it is best among other options, given we close our eyes for the possibility of the Case 2
avatar
AndrewN
avatar
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Last visit: 29 Mar 2025
Posts: 3,490
Own Kudos:
7,660
 [5]
Given Kudos: 500
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 3,490
Kudos: 7,660
 [5]
Economist: Even with energy conservation efforts, current technologies 17 Jul 2020, 16:23
4
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
abhishekmayank
Although it is an official question, I am not satisfied with the option B :

B) Increased governmental spending on research into energy technology will be more likely to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling growth than will nongovernmental spending.

Suppose we negate the option B as such :

Increased governmental spending on research into energy technology will be EQUALLY or LESS likely to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling growth than will nongovernmental spending.

Case 1 : Less likely. Of course, the conclusion breaks as the government spending is not necessary
Case 2: Equally likely. Of course, the conclusion doesn't break as both government and non-gov support are necessary

If the negation of the statement in option B breaks the conclusion partly, how can it be a correct option ?

Experts kindly help.

GMATNinja
VeritasKarishma MentorTutoring

Still, I think it is best among other options, given we close our eyes for the possibility of the Case 2
Show more
Hello, abhishekmayank. I think you may be looking to split hairs when there is no need to do so. In the argument presented, you ought to be wondering, Now why does the economist suddenly jump from discussing the problems (in sentences 1-2) to asserting that the government needs to get involved to fix them? As complicated as the passage appears to be, the assumption is pretty easy to tease out: the government needs to increase spending on research into energy technology to lead to a desirable outcome. Whenever you negate an answer choice, you either want to stick in a not or remove one, not sub-divide the possible interpretations of the negation. Keep your approach simple. In this answer set, only choices (B) and (C) even mention the government. If we negate each, we can appreciate why (C) fails as a necessary assumption:

Quote:
(B) Increased governmental spending on research into energy technology will not be more likely to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling growth than will nongovernmental spending.

C) An expanding global economy may not require at least some governmental spending on research into energy technology.
Show more
To be clear, the may of choice (C) cushions any negation and effectively presents the same statement. Consider the following two statements:

1) It may rain today.

2) It may not rain today.

In both cases, rain is a possibility. Likewise, in the two iterations of (C) above, governmental spending can or cannot be required; in (B), though, it is clear that with the simpler and more effective negation in place, the argument would crumble altogether. (B), then, is our necessary assumption.

I hope that helps. Thank you for calling my attention to the question.

- Andrew
User avatar
doeadeer
User avatar
Joined: 20 Jul 2020
Last visit: 12 May 2022
Posts: 22
Own Kudos:
6
Given Kudos: 324
Location: India
Posts: 22
Kudos: 6
Economist: Even with energy conservation efforts, current technologies 27 Jul 2020, 00:57
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi VeritasKarishma, I am not sure why D is incorrect. Could you please take us through the thought process to eliminate D.

VeritasKarishma
generis
Economist: Even with energy conservation efforts, current technologies cannot support both a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and an expanding global economy. Attempts to restrain emissions without new technology will stifle economic growth. Therefore, increases in governmental spending on research into energy technology will be necessary if we wish to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth.

Which of the following is an assumption the economist's argument requires?


A) If research into energy technology does not lead to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, then economic growth will be stifled.

B) Increased governmental spending on research into energy technology will be more likely to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling growth than will nongovernmental spending.

C) An expanding global economy may require at least some governmental spending on research into energy technology.

D) Attempts to restrain carbon dioxide emissions without new technology could ultimately cost more than the failure to reduce those emissions would cost.

E) Restraining carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth would require both new energy technology and energy conservation efforts.

CR50611.02


- Current technologies cannot support both a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and an expanding global economy.
- Attempts to restrain emissions without new technology will stifle economic growth.

Conclusion: Increases in governmental spending on research into energy technology will be necessary if we wish to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth.

This is what the argument is saying - Current tech cannot support both A and B. If we try to do A, B will not happen.
So increase in govt spending in new tech is necessary for both A and B to happen.

Now, what is the assumption here? Think about it. If we were to conclude that new tech is necessary for A and B to happen together, that would make perfect sense. We need no assumption for that. Then why do we need an assumption? Because the conclusion is saying that increased govt spending in new tech is necessary. This means we are assuming that new tech cannot come without increased govt spending. So we are assuming that non govt spending and current level of govt spending will not lead to this new tech.

(B) Increased Govt spending will more likely give this new tech than non govt spending.
Yes, we are assuming this for sure. In fact, we are assuming something even stronger than this - not just 'more likely' but 'necessary'.

If we negate it:
Increased Govt spending is not more likely to give this new tech than non govt spending.

Now our conclusion doesn't make sense. If this were true, why would increased govt spending be necessary?

Hence (B) is correct.
Show more
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 20 Apr 2026
Posts: 16,438
Own Kudos:
79,369
 [3]
Given Kudos: 484
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,438
Kudos: 79,369
 [3]
Economist: Even with energy conservation efforts, current technologies 30 Jul 2020, 23:13
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
doeadeer
Hi VeritasKarishma, I am not sure why D is incorrect. Could you please take us through the thought process to eliminate D.

VeritasKarishma
generis
Economist: Even with energy conservation efforts, current technologies cannot support both a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and an expanding global economy. Attempts to restrain emissions without new technology will stifle economic growth. Therefore, increases in governmental spending on research into energy technology will be necessary if we wish to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth.

Which of the following is an assumption the economist's argument requires?


A) If research into energy technology does not lead to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, then economic growth will be stifled.

B) Increased governmental spending on research into energy technology will be more likely to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling growth than will nongovernmental spending.

C) An expanding global economy may require at least some governmental spending on research into energy technology.

D) Attempts to restrain carbon dioxide emissions without new technology could ultimately cost more than the failure to reduce those emissions would cost.

E) Restraining carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth would require both new energy technology and energy conservation efforts.

CR50611.02


- Current technologies cannot support both a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and an expanding global economy.
- Attempts to restrain emissions without new technology will stifle economic growth.

Conclusion: Increases in governmental spending on research into energy technology will be necessary if we wish to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth.

This is what the argument is saying - Current tech cannot support both A and B. If we try to do A, B will not happen.
So increase in govt spending in new tech is necessary for both A and B to happen.

Now, what is the assumption here? Think about it. If we were to conclude that new tech is necessary for A and B to happen together, that would make perfect sense. We need no assumption for that. Then why do we need an assumption? Because the conclusion is saying that increased govt spending in new tech is necessary. This means we are assuming that new tech cannot come without increased govt spending. So we are assuming that non govt spending and current level of govt spending will not lead to this new tech.

(B) Increased Govt spending will more likely give this new tech than non govt spending.
Yes, we are assuming this for sure. In fact, we are assuming something even stronger than this - not just 'more likely' but 'necessary'.

If we negate it:
Increased Govt spending is not more likely to give this new tech than non govt spending.

Now our conclusion doesn't make sense. If this were true, why would increased govt spending be necessary?

Hence (B) is correct.
Show more

From the argument, we already know: Attempts to restrain emissions without new technology will stifle economic growth.
That is what we are interested in - how to restrain emission and continue economic growth at the same time.

D) Attempts to restrain carbon dioxide emissions without new technology could ultimately cost more than the failure to reduce those emissions would cost.

What other impact 'attempts to restrain emission without new tech' will have, we don't care. Whether the extra cost ties into low economic growth, again we don't know or care. We already know that without new tech both 'restrain emissions' and 'economic growth' cannot happen. That is the only link we are interested in.
This option gives extraneous information.
avatar
Arevik
avatar
Joined: 02 Jul 2019
Last visit: 22 Sep 2020
Posts: 5
Given Kudos: 35
Posts: 5
Kudos: 0
Economist: Even with energy conservation efforts, current technologies 04 Aug 2020, 14:26
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
itspCv2
generis
Economist: Even with energy conservation efforts, current technologies cannot support both a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and an expanding global economy. Attempts to restrain emissions without new technology will stifle economic growth. Therefore, increases in governmental spending on research into energy technology will be necessary if we wish to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth.

Which of the following is an assumption the economist's argument requires?


A) If research into energy technology does not lead to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, then economic growth will be stifled.

B) Increased governmental spending on research into energy technology will be more likely to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without stifling growth than will nongovernmental spending.

C) An expanding global economy may require at least some governmental spending on research into energy technology.

D) Attempts to restrain carbon dioxide emissions without new technology could ultimately cost more than the failure to reduce those emissions would cost.

E) Restraining carbon dioxide emissions without stifling economic growth would require both new energy technology and energy conservation efforts.

CR50611.02

OK ! Really liked this question :D

TARGET: Find Assumption of arguement.
Pre-think: Something should support his conclusion and bridge gap between premise and conclusion.


Jumped into options... I find this a bit messy>>> let's try negation technique on red marked words in options

A)Will not be shifted >> doesn't hurt the conclusion

B)will not be more likely >> >> does hurt the conclusion>> let's keep it

C)may not require >> doesn't hurt the conclusion

D) could not ultimately cost >> doesn't hurt the conclusion

E) would not require both >> doesn't hurt the conclusion

Therefore OA: B

Hope this helps

Go through CR Bible it really helps

THANKS. :thumbsup:
Show more


Hi! What is a CR Bible? :D
 1   2   3   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7391 posts
AbhishekP220108
494 posts
bhanu29
358 posts