Columnist: If governments really did get serious about

Question

Columnist: If governments really did get serious about slowing global warming, they would have to eliminate subsidies for fossil fuel production, since use of these fuels is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. However, legislators would then need the courage to resist industry pressure, as the oil, coal, and natural gas industries would certainly protest any reduction in the subsidies, in order to maintain their profitability.

Which of the following is the main point of the columnist's argument?

A. If governments were to get serious about slowing global warming, legislators would need the courage to resist pressure against reductions in subsidies for fossil fuel production.

B. Governments should eliminate subsidies for the production of fossil fuels that are major contributors to global warming.

C. The oil, coal, and natural gas industries will pressure governments not to reduce any subsidies for fossil fuel production.

D. If legislators have the courage to resist pressure against reductions in subsidies for fossil fuel production, greenhouse gas emissions will diminish.

E. Attempts to maintain the profitability of the oil, coal, and natural gas industries will probably hinder governmental efforts to slow global warming.

Posted from my mobile device

gmatophobia · Accepted Answer

Structure of the argument

If governments really did get serious about slowing global warming, they would have to eliminate subsidies for fossil fuel production,    → Conclusion

since use of these fuels is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.   → Premise; 'Since' is a premise marker.

However, legislators would then need the courage to resist industry pressure,   → Conclusion

as the oil, coal, and natural gas industries would certainly protest any reduction in the subsidies, in order to maintain their profitability.   → (Counter)Premise

The main point of the columnist's argument is that to achieve a certain goal, governments will need to resist pressure from the oil, coal, and natural gas industries in order to reduce subsidies for fossil fuel production since the use of these fuels is a major contributor to global warming.

A. If governments were to get serious about slowing global warming, legislators would need the courage to resist pressure against reductions in subsidies for fossil fuel production.

The core of the argument is that legislators need courage to resist industry pressure against reducing fossil fuel subsidies, as it is crucial for governments to effectively address global warming. Hence, we can keep this option.

B. Governments should eliminate subsidies for the production of fossil fuels that are major contributors to global warming.

While is option is a part of the conclusion, this is not the complete conclusion. The primary emphasis is on the courage legislators need to resist industry pressure. Hence, we can eliminate this option.

C. The oil, coal, and natural gas industries will pressure governments not to reduce any subsidies for fossil fuel production.

Option C focuses solely on the industry pressuring governments. This information is given as a part of the support given for the second conclusion but not the main point.

D. If legislators have the courage to resist pressure against reductions in subsidies for fossil fuel production, greenhouse gas emissions will diminish.

The second part of Option D is not correct. The Columnist doesn't guarantee that gas emissions  will   diminish if legislators have the courage to resist pressure against reductions in subsidies for fossil fuel production. They merely refer to the proposal that if governments were really getting serious about slowing global warming, they should follow a certain course of action. Option D shares a potential outcome, not the primary point being made.

E. Attempts to maintain the profitability of the oil, coal, and natural gas industries will probably hinder governmental efforts to slow global warming.

The main emphasis in the columnist's argument is on the need for legislators to have the courage to resist industry pressure against reducing subsidies. Option E captures a related aspect of the argument but doesn't convey the primary emphasis on legislative courage

Option A

einstein801 · Answer

Im surprised the answer is A. Isn't it the case that answers which restate the question stem is wrong?

sayan640 · Answer

KarishmaB  Only option A and E are close.
I rejected option E because it has "probably " whereas the passage says "certainly ".

Posted from my mobile device

KarishmaB · Answer

The question is looking for the main point of the argument, not for an inference that can be derived from the argument. What does the author really want to say?

Columnist:
If governments really did get serious about slowing global warming, they would have to eliminate subsidies for fossil fuel production, since use of these fuels is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.
However, legislators would then need the courage to resist industry pressure, as (similar to because) the oil etc industries would protest any reduction in the subsidies to maintain their profitability.

If we are to condense the author's argument into 1 sentence - the point he wants to make and ignore the supporting data he has given, what would be that point?

"If governments really did get serious about slowing global warming, they would have to eliminate subsidies for fossil fuel production, and would then need the courage to resist industry pressure"

This is why he wrote the argument - to tell us this. He supports it by providing other details.

A. If governments were to get serious about slowing global warming, legislators would need the courage to resist pressure against reductions in subsidies for fossil fuel production.

Pretty much what we were looking for.

B. Governments should eliminate subsidies for the production of fossil fuels that are major contributors to global warming.

The author doesn't say that this is what the government should do. He says that 'if the government really did get serious about slowing global warming,' then it would need to take such steps.

C. The oil, coal, and natural gas industries will pressure governments not to reduce any subsidies for fossil fuel production.

Again, not the main point that the author is trying to make. The author does not say that the government is reducing subsidies and hence these industries will pressurize governments not to.

D. If legislators have the courage to resist pressure against reductions in subsidies for fossil fuel production, greenhouse gas emissions will diminish.

We cannot even infer this so no point wondering whether it is the main point. Even if legislators have the courage, are they serious about slowing global warming? - we don't know.

E. Attempts to maintain the profitability of the oil, coal, and natural gas industries will probably hinder governmental efforts to slow global warming.

This is almost an inference we can derive from the given stimulus, but is this what the author is trying to tell us? The author's focus is on the legislators - their seriousness and their courage. He tells us what they would need if they were serious about reducing global warming.  The argument is not written to take the oil industry's perspective into consideration and how that would impact government efforts. Hence this is not correct.

Answer (A)

sayan640 · Answer

Maa'm , kindly comment on my reasoning.

KarishmaB · Answer

I have given above what the actual reasoning for (E) is. Option (E) is an inference ("probably," if at all, makes it a "better" inference) but it is not the main point of the argument.

einstein801 · Answer

Hi Karishma, why is A correct? Isn't it the case that restated answers from question stem are wrong?

SergejK · Answer

The way I understand it, we are  asked  for a restatement of the conclusions, which are the main points of the arguments. Similarly to RC passages, this here is a main point question, the answer to which is at times the conclusion of the author, if there is one. Everything else in this question are either inferences or statements that cannot be derived from the passage.

A_Nishith · Answer

Argument Breakdown 
The columnist's argument can be broken down into these key points:

1) Governments need to be serious about slowing global warming.
2) If they are serious, they must eliminate subsidies for fossil fuel production because fossil fuels are a major contributor 
 to greenhouse gas emissions.
3) However, eliminating these subsidies would require legislators to resist pressure from the oil, coal, and natural gas 
 industries.
4) The industries would protest any reduction in subsidies to maintain their profitability.

Analysis of Each Option 
A. If governments were to get serious about slowing global warming, legislators would need the courage to resist pressure against reductions in subsidies for fossil fuel production.

Analysis:  This option directly addresses the relationship between government action on global warming and the need for legislative courage in the face of industry pressure. It summarizes the key conditional idea of the columnist's argument: the need for courage if governments are to tackle global warming seriously.
 Verdict:  Strong contender as it captures the main point well.

B. Governments should eliminate subsidies for the production of fossil fuels that are major contributors to global warming.

Analysis:  This option suggests a recommendation that governments should eliminate subsidies, which is a key point, but it doesn't capture the complexity of the argument that also involves industry pressure and the need for legislative courage.
 Verdict:  Incomplete; it misses the crucial element of industry pressure and legislative courage.

C. The oil, coal, and natural gas industries will pressure governments not to reduce any subsidies for fossil fuel production.

Analysis:  This option focuses on the pressure that industries would exert, which is mentioned in the argument, but it doesn’t reflect the main point. The argument is not just about the pressure, but about the broader issue of government action on global warming.
 Verdict:  Narrow focus; not the main point.

D. If legislators have the courage to resist pressure against reductions in subsidies for fossil fuel production, greenhouse gas emissions will diminish.

Analysis:  This option suggests that resisting pressure will directly result in reduced emissions. However, the columnist doesn't explicitly claim this; the focus is more on what is required if governments want to address global warming seriously.
 Verdict:  Incorrect as it introduces an assumption not directly supported by the argument.

E. Attempts to maintain the profitability of the oil, coal, and natural gas industries will probably hinder governmental efforts to slow global warming.

Analysis:  This option correctly identifies the conflict between industry profitability and governmental efforts to slow global warming. However, it doesn’t emphasize the conditional relationship that if governments are serious, they need courage to resist this pressure.
 Verdict:  Good but lacks the emphasis on legislative courage and conditional action.

Conclusion 
The option that best captures the main point of the columnist's argument is A.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Columnist: If governments really did get serious about

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

Columnist: If governments really did get serious about

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