The international team of scientists, whose research was conducted und

Question

The international team of scientists, whose research was conducted under the European Commission-funded CARBO-Extreme Project, contends that extreme climate events, such as droughts, heat waves and storms, weaken the buffer effect that terrestrial ecosystems have on the climate system. The researchers discovered that drought has a particular capacity to reduce the amount of carbon that is absorbed by forests, meadows and agricultural land. Their findings suggest that by diminishing the natural environment’s ability to absorb carbon, extreme weather simultaneously results from, and perpetuates, climate change. During the course of their study, the CARBO-Extreme team, headed by Dr Reichstein, examined how extreme weather affects forests, bogs, grassy landscapes and arable areas across the planet.

The team, whose findings have been published in the latest issue of the journal “Nature”, enlisted the help of complex computer models to calculate the global effect of extreme climate events on the carbon balance. They discovered that drought, as opposed to heat, has the most pronounced effect on an ecosystem’s ability to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. As climate change continues to gather pace, many experts believe that extreme weather events will occur more frequently than they do at present. If the CARBO-Extreme team is correct and extreme weather is a significant driver of climate change, this relationship could turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophesy. Unfortunately, it is very difficult for scientists to categorically state whether or not extreme weather is becoming more frequent. Whilst there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that heat waves and droughts will increase in frequency over the course of the next century, data pertaining to other extreme climate events remains inconclusive.   1 
 Question: 1: The author of this passage is primarily concerned with

A. providing a list of evidences that suggests a correlation between drought and climate change
B. resolving a contention between two schools of thought regarding a perceived natural occurrence
C. arguing for a change in National policies to incorporate a more ecologically conscientious view to the use of natural resources
D. evaluating a theory put forth by a team of scientists regarding a possible phenomenon
E. detailing the research findings of the CARBO-Extreme team

2 
 Question: 2: Which of the following can be best inferred from the passage?

A. Increase in droughts is the cause for extreme climate changes.
B. Extreme climate changes are the sole causative factors for drought and other extreme climate events
C. Accumulation of carbon-dioxide in the environment can cause climatic changes that are deleterious
D. Apart from droughts, other extreme climate events have no apparent connection with climatic change.
E. Aquatic ecosystems have a less pronounced mitigatory effect on climate change than do terrestrial ecosystems

3 
 Question: 3: The journal “Nature” is introduced in the 2nd paragraph primarily to

A. cite the source used by the CARBO-extreme team to substantiate their hypotheses.
B. forestall potential criticisms that might call into question the authenticity of the teams findings
C. provide a recorded instance of the teams work from which information about the teams findings could be obtained.
D. show the magnitude to which the teams research findings have had an impact.
E. highlight the fact that - extreme climate change is an issue that even the common-man has become concerned about.

4 
 Question: 4: Which of the following best describes the organization of the passage

A. An opinion is discussed; evidences suggesting the fallaciousness of the opinion are then provided.
B. A phenomenon is discussed, this phenomenon is then compared to another to understand the similarities shared.
C. A teams perspective about a natural occurrence is discussed; some evidence suggesting the validity of the theory are provided.
D. An explanation to a phenomenon is provided; evidences provided to substantiate this explanation are evaluated.
E. An assumption is put forth and the validity of this assumption is analyzed in light of new scientific findings.

BARUAH · Answer

Question: 4

Which of the following best describes the organization of the passage
a) An opinion is discussed;  evidences suggesting the fallaciousness  of the opinion are then provided. : No evidence discussed to prove fallaciousness.

b) A phenomenon is discussed, this phenomenon is then  compared to another  to understand the similarities shared.: No comparison of two phenomenons.

c) A teams perspective about a natural occurrence is discussed; some evidence suggesting the validity of the theory are provided. Correct

d) An explanation to a phenomenon is provided;  evidences provided to substantiate this explanation are evaluated . :Evidences are provided to substantiate the perspective and this perspective is evaluated to some extent.But the evidences are not at all evaluated.

e) An  assumption  is put forth and the validity of this assumption is analyzed in light of new scientific findings.: No assumption is mentioned.

ShankSouljaBoi · Answer

Why D is wrong in q 4 ?

1. It is not a phenomenon , it is a possible phenomenon.
2 Evidences are not evaluated. No where it is mentioned in the passage that the research has been evaluated or the findings have been evaluated.
The organization is Theory> Possible Phenomenon> Research> Findings> Final conclusion of the author .

Annet1524 · Answer

1)  d)  evaluating a theory put forth by a team of scientists regarding a possible phenomenon
in 1st paragraph the author explains the theory, which team learned and in 2nd paragraph by using the artical about another team with better equipment 
the auther evaluates the theory

2)  c)  Accumulation of carbon-dioxide in the environment can cause climatic changes that are deleterious
In this passage we don't see such words but all meaning is about preventing accumulation of carbon-dioxide

3)  c)  provide a recorded instance of the teams work from which information about the teams findings could be obtained.
in the article we find the information about computer, which helps to obtain additional information about team's research

4)  c)  A teams perspective about a natural occurrence is discussed; some evidence suggesting the validity of the theory are provided.
in firsh paragraph the author says about the research of team (natural accurrence) and brings evidence in the second (computer)

goofytiwari69 · Answer

Question: 4: Which of the following best describes the organization of the passage

a) An opinion is discussed; evidences suggesting the fallaciousness of the opinion are then provided.
b) A phenomenon is discussed, this phenomenon is then compared to another to understand the similarities shared.
c) A teams perspective about a natural occurrence is discussed; some evidence suggesting the validity of the theory are provided.
d) An explanation to a phenomenon is provided; evidences provided to substantiate this explanation are evaluated.
e) An assumption is put forth and the validity of this assumption is analyzed in light of new scientific findings.

lets see what te first para is all about..

the team contends something( weakening of the buffer effect that terrestrial ecosystems have on the climate system) then they talk about drought and then how weakening of the buffer perpetuates climate change. lets look at the options-
a. wrong . no opinion is discussed and the second part is totally wrong.
b wrong. no phenomemom is discussed and certainly not compared
c.maybe true. hold onto it.
d. para 1 doesnt explain a phenomenon it just conteds based on findings.
e. no assumption is put forward.para 1 just just conteds based on findings.

Eaneru · Answer

SajjadAhmad

This is a more generic question:

We know that the tone of the passage is evaluating the conclusion of the study (primary purpose Q).
 If that is so, shouldn't the organisation answer also contain the part where author questions the validity?

I am not denying that C is correct, but I chose D because of the reason stated above. 
Yes C is the best one considering the correctness of the options, but i feel is incomplete. 
 How should i approach such questions?

Thanks

GAngstA · Answer

for 1 , why not E 
i mean whole passage is about finding of carbo ex team . i feel option D is too specified. what experts thought on that.
thank you in advance.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Hi GAngstA

This is a global question so we have to think globally while keeping ourselves within the boundaries of the passage. The short summary of both paragraphs of the passage can e articulated in the following text:

Paragraph 1:  Scientists asserted that the extreme climate events weaken the buffer effect that terrestrial ecosystems have on climate change. Dr Reichstein, with his team, examined how extreme weather affects forests, bogs, grassy landscapes, and other areas.

Paragraph 2:  The team discovered that drought, as opposed to heat, has the most effect on the ecosystem's ability to remove  CO_{2}  from the atmosphere. According to the team, extreme weather is the reason for climate change however it is not clear yet.

Keeping in mind the summary above come to the answer option  (E)

e) detailing the research findings of the CARBO-Extreme team

The word  detailing  in the  (E)  is very specific and limited, it squeezes the scope of the passage. It ignores the second half of the last paragraph altogether and hence is wrong.

ReetArora · Answer

confused in question 2 , instead of accumulation of carbon dioxide, it talks about its absorption. . Although none other options seems to fit in.

manish8242 · Answer

data pertaining to other extreme climate events remains inconclusive

this is mentioned in the passage last sentence so what does it mean? Does 'DATA' not come under evidence? If it comes then author is indeed saying this is inconclusive so author is giving his opinion so it must be called evaluation of evidence

bestreturn · Answer

What about question 3, why not D? I feel like it can go either way C or D

Sajjad1994 · Answer

In the start of the second paragraph the author says:

"The team, whose findings have been published in the latest issue of the journal “Nature”, enlisted the help of complex computer models to calculate the global effect of extreme climate events on the carbon balance."

The author mentioned " Nature"  here to indicate where the findings were published, so readers know there is a publicly available scientific record of this research.

(C)  fits: the findings were published in Nature, so that’s where one could read about them.

(D)  didn't really fits; no emphasis on impact size in th passage, just where it was published.

rak08 · Answer

Sajjad1994   GMATNinja   KarishmaB

Please help me figure in Q4 why is it that even though we see that in the last para the author is actually evaluating whether or not is the theory true still we say that evidences are provided . evidences were provided and evaluated / challenged

egmat · Answer

The passage discusses  two different questions :
 Question 1:  Does extreme weather reduce carbon absorption? → Evidence supports this (findings, computer models, drought data)
 Question 2:  Will extreme weather become more frequent in the future? → This is what's "inconclusive"

The Trap: 
When you see "difficult to categorically state" and "inconclusive," check  WHAT  is uncertain.
The uncertainty is about  future frequency predictions  - NOT about whether the team's core mechanism is valid.

Why C is Correct: 
 
 Team's perspective about natural occurrence ✓ 
 Evidence suggesting validity of theory ✓  
The passage  supports  the team's theory throughout. It only notes uncertainty about a  separate  future prediction.

Why D is Wrong: 
D says evidence is "evaluated" - but the team's evidence is  never questioned . The "inconclusive" language applies to a different topic entirely.

kartickdey · Answer

KarishmaB  Please explain why in Q1, option E is wrong and D is right.
If D is the right option in Q1, then why D is wrong in Q4.

egmat · Answer

Question:  Why is D correct in Q1 but wrong in Q4?

The Core Distinction:

Primary Purpose  = What is the author  trying to do ?
 Organization  = How is information  structured ?

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Q1: Why D is Correct

D says:  "evaluating a theory put forth by a team of scientists"

The author's PURPOSE is evaluative: 
•  "If  the CARBO-Extreme team is correct..." → Conditional, not accepting as fact
• "very difficult for scientists to categorically state..." → Expressing doubt
• "data...remains  inconclusive " → Assessment of validity

Why E is wrong:  "Detailing" = just reporting. But the author adds judgment and caveats. That's evaluation, not mere description.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Q4: Why D is Wrong

D says:  "evidences provided to substantiate this explanation are  evaluated "

Critical error:  This claims the passage evaluates THE TEAM'S EVIDENCE (their computer models, drought findings, methodology).

But ask yourself: Does the passage ever question:
• Whether their computer models were accurate?  NO 
• Whether their drought data was valid?  NO 
• Whether their methodology was sound?  NO

The "inconclusive" data refers to  OTHER studies  about weather frequency - NOT the CARBO-Extreme team's own evidence!

Why C is correct: 
C says:  "A team's perspective is discussed; some evidence suggesting the validity of the theory are provided"

This accurately describes the  structure :
 1.  Team's perspective → Introduced (their contention about extreme weather)
 2.  Supporting evidence → Provided (their findings about drought, carbon absorption, computer models)

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

The Key Insight:

The author  evaluates  (that's the purpose), but the passage  structure  is simply: present perspective → provide their evidence → note limitations.

Takeaway:  "Evaluating the THEORY" ≠ "Evaluating the EVIDENCE." The passage assesses whether the theory's implications hold, NOT whether the team's methodology was sound.

The international team of scientists, whose research was conducted und

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 Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

The international team of scientists, whose research was conducted und

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