12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition 2025 - Day 6: Several government

jefferyillman

Joined: 01 Dec 2024

Last visit: 23 Apr 2026

Posts: 50

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 3

Posts: 50

Kudos: 27

22 Dec 2025, 17:57

Kudos

Bookmarks

answer c

carbon offset alone do not work

Bunuel

rohit8865

Joined: 05 Mar 2015

Last visit: 19 Apr 2026

Posts: 815

Own Kudos:

1,008

[1]

Given Kudos: 45

Products:

Posts: 815

Kudos: 1,008

[1]

22 Dec 2025, 19:00

Kudos

Bookmarks

Several governments have committed to reaching “net-zero” carbon emissions by 2050, often by investing in carbon offset programs such as reforestation and carbon capture. However, a recent analysis argues that offsetting alone will not be sufficient, because many offsets represent reductions that would have occurred even without new investments. Therefore, the analysis concludes that only policies that directly reduce fossil fuel combustion rather than relying on offsetting can reliably achieve climate stabilization targets.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument in the analysis?

A. Global carbon emissions rose in the past decade despite record levels of investment in offset markets by both governments and corporations. INCORRECT. Levels of investment cant be considered without knowing previous efforts.
B. Many governments that rely heavily on offset programs also provide subsidies to fossil fuel industries, undermining the impact of their emissions pledges. INCORRECT. Out of track . undermining impact is of no use
C. Independent audits reveal that a significant share of carbon offset projects report emissions reductions that are not additional to what would have occurred under business-as-usual scenarios. CORRECT. this strengthens as offset is not adding any further more value to reduction.
D. Reforestation-based offsets often take decades to achieve full carbon absorption and are vulnerable to reversal due to wildfire or land use changes. INCORRECT. only reforestation cant be considered.
E. Technological innovations in direct air capture remain expensive and unscalable in the near term, reducing the feasibility of offset-based net-zero pathways. INCORRECT. innovations may hamper but offset still be considered.

Ans C

bhanu29

Joined: 02 Oct 2024

Last visit: 22 Apr 2026

Posts: 358

Own Kudos:

270

[1]

Given Kudos: 263

Location: India

Schools: Anderson '27 Booth '27 Foster '27 Haas '27 Kellogg '27 Kellogg Mashall '27 McCombs '27 Ross '27 Scheller '27 Tepper '27 Yale '27 Sloan (MIT) Stanford '27

GMAT Focus 1: 675 Q87 V85 DI79 Verified score

GMAT Focus 2: 715 Q87 V84 DI86 Verified score

GPA: 9.11

WE:Engineering (Technology)

Products:

Schools: Anderson '27 Booth '27 Foster '27 Haas '27 Kellogg '27 Kellogg Mashall '27 McCombs '27 Ross '27 Scheller '27 Tepper '27 Yale '27 Sloan (MIT) Stanford '27

GMAT Focus 2: 715 Q87 V84 DI86 Verified score

Posts: 358

Kudos: 270

[1]

22 Dec 2025, 20:12

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

Premises:
Several governments have committed to reaching “net-zero” carbon emissions by 2050, often by investing in carbon offset programs such as reforestation and carbon capture.
However, a recent analysis argues that offsetting alone will not be sufficient, because many offsets represent reductions that would have occurred even without new investments.

Conclusion:
Therefore, the analysis concludes that only policies that directly reduce fossil fuel combustion rather than relying on offsetting can reliably achieve climate stabilization targets.

Strengthen the conclusion.

A. Global carbon emissions rose in the past decade despite record levels of investment in offset markets by both governments and corporations.
This doesn't support the conclusion, we are talking about several govts not global. Eliminate.

B. Many governments that rely heavily on offset programs also provide subsidies to fossil fuel industries, undermining the impact of their emissions pledges.
This doesn't strengthen the conclusion, even so those govts can still could reach net zero emission just with offsets. Eliminate.

C. Independent audits reveal that a significant share of carbon offset projects report emissions reductions that are not additional to what would have occurred under business-as-usual scenarios.
This strengthens the argument, wee see that carbon offset, didn't really impact emission reductions much. Keep.

D. Reforestation-based offsets often take decades to achieve full carbon absorption and are vulnerable to reversal due to wildfire or land use changes.
While this might be true, still doesn't strengthen the conclusion, we have carbon capture, which also could offset. Eliminate.

E. Technological innovations in direct air capture remain expensive and unscalable in the near term, reducing the feasibility of offset-based net-zero pathways.
While this might be true, in the long term it might become cheap and scalable, and we also have reforestation. Eliminate.

Correct Answer: C

Dereno

Joined: 22 May 2020

Last visit: 23 Apr 2026

Posts: 1,398

Own Kudos:

1,373

Given Kudos: 425

Products:

Posts: 1,398

Kudos: 1,373

22 Dec 2025, 23:47

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

Several governments across the world are committed to reach NET ZERO Carbon emissions by 2050. So, what’s NET zero ? The amount of gases added and removed into the atmosphere is same. How can this be achieved? A new terminology is introduced called as “ Carbon Offset “. In order to maintain net zero, the amount of gases added in the world should be compensated by exact or more removal of gases. This process of extracting or removing the carbon gases from the atmosphere is called carbon offset.

This can be done by carbon offset programs - reforestation and carbon capture. Reforestation means adding more trees, and carbon capture is storing carbon emissions inside the earth, preventing it from immediate escape.

With the platform set for the passage, let’s take a closer look into what the passage is all about.

However, denotes the existing system or processes might not be as effective as they are. Recent analysis has shown offsetting alone is not sufficient, which means offsetting is doing something towards net zero carbon. But, to reach it by 2050 using this method seems impractical. Because, even without investments for carbon offset, the reductions might occur.

They conclude, that policies which directly strikes to reduce fossil fuel combustion will help achieve the climate stabilisation targets, not the offsetting programs.

We need to find an effective strengthening statement:

A) This option mentions despite record levels of investments to the offsetting programs have never supported the reduction of global carbon emissions. Actually, the value has increased. So, they conclude the program is a failure. This may or may not be true, as there is a case, where the offsetting program has functioned to its peak potential, but the emission levels have increased from earlier 5% to 20%, so offsetting cannot compensate it. Hence, Wrong.

B) This option speaks about the governments, that rely heavily on offsetting programs. The government offers subsidies to the fossil fuel industries. The government is acting in contradiction to letter and spirit. Just subsidies are provided doesn’t connote the government is supporting emissions. May the subsidies is to boost economy, or generate more jobs in the locality. Or maybe the company should produce products that’s of more importance to national interests. Hence, cannot conclude by assuming a correlation. Wrong.

C) The option mentions the report is from an independent audit agency, means this report is not biased or driven by ulterior motives to support the offset programs. Secondly, the report mentions carbon offsetting program has not done anything so great, the outcome would have occured without the presence of such programs. This presents a view that the presence of offsetting program is negligible. Hence, strengthens the view of the passage.

D) This explains a practical problem to a specific offsetting program - the reforestation, which is 100% true. But, the destruction of reforestation due to wildfires and land use, might reverse the trend. The option mentions even though offsetting might seem supporting, there are cases that in the longer run can eventually fail. But, with or without offset, the reductions are going to occur is the question of debate . Hence, wrong.

E) This option speaks about the technological hindrances and financial constraints, which applies brakes on the wheels running towards net carbon emissions by 2050. Yeah logically, this throws light on a particular aspect of a huge theme - carbon offset. But, does this option is in sync with the context being debated. The answer is NO. Hence, Wrong.

Option C

sriharsha4444

Joined: 06 Jun 2018

Last visit: 05 Mar 2026

Posts: 125

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 803

Posts: 125

Kudos: 84

[1]

23 Dec 2025, 00:07

Kudos

Bookmarks

net zero: either offset using reforestation or carbon capture OR reduce fossil fuels. But these offsets are not anymore than without the offset efforts.

conclusion: fossil fuels shall be reduced directly instead of relying on offset methods.

A. overall on the globe it is expected to rise because it is doing net zero but then the rest of pollution can still grow as usual from other sources. So not a reason to say gov should focus on reducing fossil fuels
B. government may support both but this statement is not enough reason to say they should reduce fossil fuels
C. Correct. Independent audits are giving more evidence that with just business -as-usual whatever improvements are done are also done with the offset pledges. Therefore offsets are not enough, we need to do fossil fuels reductions as well
D. Nice trap. this kind of suggests that reforestation is not enough. But doesn't tell why directly reducing fossil fuels is needed
E. Nice trap. Same as D. It says carbon / air capture is not enough. But doesn't strengthen why directly reducing fossil fuels is needed (why can't we use someother method)

arnab24

Joined: 16 Jan 2024

Last visit: 25 Feb 2026

Posts: 96

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 7

Location: India

Schools: ISB '26

GPA: 8.80

Products:

Schools: ISB '26

Posts: 96

Kudos: 81

23 Dec 2025, 00:45

Kudos

Bookmarks

The main conclusion of the argument is : The analysis concludes that only policies that directly reduce fossil fuel combustion rather than relying on offsetting can reliably achieve climate stabilization targets. It means there is an assumption that the analysis finds some policies by governments that not fully supporting their emission pledge despite investing in offset programs. This is not reliably achieving climate stabilization. We need to find such statement which supports this assumption. Let's check options one by one:

(A) It is incorrect since it's not supporting main conclusion the argument. It's not talking about anything related to current policies.
(B) It's correct. It is directly strengthen the argument's assumption that there is a current policy which is subsidiary to fossil fuel industries that might be leading high carbon emissions violating their own emission pledges.
(C) It's incorrect, not supporting the main conclusion.
(D) It's incorrect not supporting the main conclusion. Not concerned about limitations of the strategies.
(E) It's incorrect not supporting the main conclusion. Nit concerned about the limitations of the strategies.

So , B is the correct answer

Bunuel

Rahilgaur

Joined: 24 Jun 2024

Last visit: 26 Jan 2026

Posts: 162

Own Kudos:

125

[1]

Given Kudos: 47

GMAT Focus 1: 575 Q81 V82 DI72 Verified score

Products:

GMAT Focus 1: 575 Q81 V82 DI72 Verified score

Posts: 162

Kudos: 125

[1]

23 Dec 2025, 00:56

Kudos

Bookmarks

Several governments have committed to reaching “net-zero” carbon emissions by 2050, often by investing in carbon offset programs such as reforestation and carbon capture. However, a recent analysis argues that offsetting alone will not be sufficient, because many offsets represent reductions that would have occurred even without new investments. Therefore, the analysis concludes that only policies that directly reduce fossil fuel combustion rather than relying on offsetting can reliably achieve climate stabilization targets.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument in the analysis?

Conclusion - Policies to reduce fossil fuel combustion are more effective than offsetting.

A. Global carbon emissions rose in the past decade despite record levels of investment in offset markets by both governments and corporations. - Supports the argument as provide the factual support that despite great efforts towards offsetting carbon emission rose, and not possible to reach net-zero by 2050.

B. Many governments that rely heavily on offset programs also provide subsidies to fossil fuel industries, undermining the impact of their emissions pledges. - Also supports the argument

C. Independent audits reveal that a significant share of carbon offset projects report emissions reductions that are not additional to what would have occurred under business-as-usual scenarios.- Directly supports the argument that - many offsets represent reductions that would have occurred even without new investments.

D. Reforestation-based offsets often take decades to achieve full carbon absorption and are vulnerable to reversal due to wildfire or land use changes. - True but irrelevant for the given argument.

E. Technological innovations in direct air capture remain expensive and unscalable in the near term, reducing the feasibility of offset-based net-zero pathways. - Nothing about technology is mentioned in argument. Hence, irrelevant.

Upon reading A, B & C again, C is directly providing factual support to the argument given and hence, most strength the argument. Answer C.

Pratyaksh1907

Joined: 17 Nov 2024

Last visit: 23 Apr 2026

Posts: 35

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 38

Products:

Posts: 35

Kudos: 11

23 Dec 2025, 01:19

Kudos

Bookmarks

Since many carbon offset reductions would have occurred anyway, even without investing, policies that directly reduce fossil fuels can reliably achieve climate stabilization. [Linkage]
Now, we have to strengthen this link.

Bunuel

A - That's a strengthener, but don't you think that it ends up strengthening more than what the author has concluded? Maybe there were some other reasons, like fire outbreak in Amazon (say). Correlation not equal to Causation.

B - This is a weakener

C - This option is strengthening the evidence provided to derive the conclusion in the argument. Therefore, it is the valid strengthener.

D - It focuses on a single topic 'Reforestation' and present it as a main point on which the argument depends. But the Author never presented 'Reforestation' as the main point. [Common hard level CR trap]

E - Technological innovation about air capture is irrelevant to out concern.

Hope it helps,
Thanks :)

jkkamau

Joined: 25 May 2020

Last visit: 23 Apr 2026

Posts: 226

Own Kudos:

190

[1]

Given Kudos: 142

Location: Kenya

Schools: Haas '25

GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V46 Verified score

GPA: 3.5

Schools: Haas '25

GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V46 Verified score

Posts: 226

Kudos: 190

[1]

23 Dec 2025, 01:23

Kudos

Bookmarks

A. Just states a correlation between carbon emission and record investments but does not identify the investment as a problem
B. This choice actually supports the offset programs by stating that they could actually do better were it not of the government subsidies
C. Correct. If this is true then truly we do not need the offset programs
D. This is out of scope because it speaks of another thing; reforestation which we do not care about
E Just as D this too focuses on something that is irrelevant to us

Bunuel

gchandana

Joined: 16 May 2024

Last visit: 23 Apr 2026

Posts: 192

Own Kudos:

142

[1]

Given Kudos: 170

Location: India

Products:

Posts: 192

Kudos: 142

[1]

23 Dec 2025, 01:35

Kudos

Bookmarks

A. This may look like it is strengthening. But it is not. All it says the emissions rose despite record levels of investments in offset markets. But we want to strengthen that with or without investments, the reductions are the same, and reducing fossil fuel combustion would help achieve targets better.
B. This is not relevant.
C. Yes, this gives additional evidence to the premise given in the argument.
D. This shows that reforestation-based offsets are not worth the investment or that they cannot be completely achieved. But C is a better strengthener.
E. Same as D, this talks about direct air capture. It says feasibility is reduced. But C clearly shows that investing in offset projects isn't helpful.

Option C.

Bunuel

raffaeleprio

Joined: 15 Nov 2020

Last visit: 13 Apr 2026

Posts: 56

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 1

Location: Italy

GPA: 3.71

Posts: 56

Kudos: 59

[1]

23 Dec 2025, 02:32

Kudos

Bookmarks

Argument: Offsetting alone is not sufficient for the reduction of carbon emissions because the impact of many of them is not worth investing money with (as we would have reached a similar level without them).

We need a support of this argument:

C states that independent measurements show that a significant share of offsetting projects report reductions which are basically the same of business as usual scenario, hence it strenghts the argument above!

IMO C!

linnet

Joined: 11 Dec 2025

Last visit: 22 Jan 2026

Posts: 81

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 1

Posts: 81

Kudos: 42

23 Dec 2025, 03:24

Kudos

Bookmarks

B: Many governments that rely heavily on offset programs also provide subsidies to fossil fuel industries, undermining the impact of their emission pledges

adityamntr

Joined: 15 Jul 2023

Last visit: 21 Feb 2026

Posts: 111

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 13

Location: India

Concentration: General Management, Strategy

Schools: Booth '27 Fuqua '27 Kellog '27

Posts: 111

Kudos: 81

[1]

23 Dec 2025, 04:20

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

A) there could be other reason due to which the carbon emisssion rose.
B) points to a contraditcion in govement policy. hence does not streneghten
C) this exactly pin points a possible evidence of the abovr the arguement. hence strengethenign the arguement
D) timelines are not an issue at, in the arguement
E)this weakens the argeuement.

hershehy

Joined: 28 Jul 2025

Last visit: 21 Apr 2026

Posts: 24

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 5

Posts: 24

Kudos: 18

[1]

23 Dec 2025, 04:34

Kudos

Bookmarks

IMO C
Because The argument’s core claim is that offsetting is unreliable because many factors are not additional.
Choice C says only that by stating that audits show many offset projects do not produce additional reductions. That strongly supports the conclusion that relying on offsets alone won’t achieve climate targets, and that direct fossil fuel reduction is necessary hence strengthning.

also, why I dont see others working:

A : confuses co relation w causasation. Emissions could rise for many reasons unrelated to offsets’ effectiveness.

B highlights policy inconsistency, not a flaw inherent to offsets themselves.

D irrelevant, raises timing and durability concerns, but not the additionality issue central to the argument.

E OOS discusses feasibility of one offset technology, not whether offsets in principle fail to deliver real reduction

msignatius

Joined: 28 Aug 2025

Last visit: 09 Apr 2026

Posts: 131

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 31

Location: India

Concentration: Strategy, Marketing

Schools: ISB '27 NUS '26 INSEAD Jan '26 (S) IESE '26 (D) HEC (S) IMD ESADE'26 Judge '26 LBS '27

GMAT Focus 1: 705 Q86 V85 DI84 Verified score

GPA: 3.5

WE:Marketing (Consulting)

Products:

Schools: ISB '27 NUS '26 INSEAD Jan '26 (S) IESE '26 (D) HEC (S) IMD ESADE'26 Judge '26 LBS '27

GMAT Focus 1: 705 Q86 V85 DI84 Verified score

Posts: 131

Kudos: 98

[1]

23 Dec 2025, 05:49

Kudos

Bookmarks

Wasn't it net-zero carbon emissions by 2030 just until recently? *sigh*

Anyway, today we have a strengthener and a weakener - I like that. With this one, we are given that governments are aiming to cut down emissions to "net-zero" using carbon offset programs like reforestation (to absorb greenhouse emissions) and carbon capture (an industry turning the burning fossil fuels into reusable energy).

Now, there's an analysis that states - "carbon offsetting alone won't be enough" for a reason that's akin to "the role of investing in the sun to produce heat"; older investments / past investments / ongoing efforts will offset carbon emissions irrespective. So, we're adding fire to... fire.

The alternative for the use of these investments that's suggested: focus on policies to directly reduce fossil fuel combustion rather than combating the impact of said combustion.

The argument itself is flawed, but we're not concerned with that - we're looking to perhaps minimize the flaw or directly come up with a strengthener. Let's see how the options help:

Option A: First, let's be clear what the argument is. It is 'investing in offsets are useless, instead directly reduce fossil fuel combustion." But this one really only addresses the first part - that it has been observed that global carbon emissions have increased despite offset market investments. But this isn't a strengthened in many ways - investments may take some time to show results as we're talking about large-scale undoing of major industrial patterns; the investments may have in fact combatted a serious quantity of emissions, and if hadn't taken place, the carbon situation would've been far worse. Eliminate.

Option B: Well, we can't really be comparing oranges to apples now, can we? Governments are relying on offset programs AND providing subsidies to fossil fuel industries - rather than providing subsidies because of the offset programs. Plus, undermining the impact of their pledge just proves how further investment can work to resolve these challenges, rather than shifting focus. Eliminate.

Option C: This one's convoluted but with a bit of double-triple-quadruple reading, you get the point. If independent audits say that carbon offset projects are indeed reporting no emission reductions compared to business-as-usual scenarios, then these investments have proven a waste, and directly combating fossil fuel use might be a good idea. Correct.

Option D: Here's the thing. This presents caveats for the carbon offset program, but in no way is it strong enough to question its viability. For starters, this statement has the inverse-effect of proving that reforestation does work - and also that continued investment may be necessary given its longer timeline. The disasters that can counter it - are they enough to make a dent? Also, why don't we just use the funds to prevent these from happening? Not enough of a strengthener. Eliminate.

Option E: We're talking about 'technological innovations being infeasible'; who's to say the current technology is not feasible enough? Advancing the technology is unviable, not its current use. Eliminate.

Bunuel

Gmat860sanskar

Joined: 05 May 2023

Last visit: 23 Apr 2026

Posts: 212

Own Kudos:

113

[2]

Given Kudos: 79

Schools: ISB '26

GMAT Focus 1: 605 Q82 V78 DI80 Verified score

Products:

Schools: ISB '26

GMAT Focus 1: 605 Q82 V78 DI80 Verified score

Posts: 212

Kudos: 113

[2]

23 Dec 2025, 06:29

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

Stimulus :

Premise : Recent analysis shows that offsetting alone is insufficient to achieve net zero goal

Conclusion : That's why they need to lower fossil fuel combustion

Question : we need to strengthen the argument

Let's see options :

Option A : This shows correlation but don't actually affect the argument, there can be many reasons for this correlation ----- Incorrect

Option B : This shows irony but here also we don't get our why ? ----- Incorrect

Option C : This strengthen our premise, as in we got another proof from independent audit , which says the same thing ------ Correct

option D : it says that reforestation takes time to offset, but this is irrelevant to our argument ----- Incorrect

Option E : This talks about advancement in tech. is not achieved again irrelevant ------ Incorrect

Our answer is C

redandme21

Joined: 14 Dec 2025

Last visit: 05 Jan 2026

Posts: 97

Own Kudos:

[1]

Posts: 97

Kudos: 87

[1]

23 Dec 2025, 06:39

Kudos

Bookmarks

To strengthen, we need to support that offsets are unreliable due to lack of additionality or similar reason, so direct fossil fuel reduction is needed.

A This weakens offsets' effectiveness, but it doesn't specifically tie to additionality. It could be due to other factors.

B This isn't specifically about offset failure as a strategy.

C Correct. It directly supports the premise that offsets are often non-additional, strengthening the reasoning.

D It weakens offsets' effectiveness, but not specifically about additionality. It focuses on time lag.

E This option is not about offset additionality, but about feasibility of one type of offset tech.

IMO C

Reon

Joined: 16 Sep 2025

Last visit: 28 Mar 2026

Posts: 134

Own Kudos:

121

[1]

Given Kudos: 4

Posts: 134

Kudos: 121

[1]

23 Dec 2025, 06:41

Kudos

Bookmarks

only policies that directly reduce fossil fuel combustion rather than relying on offsetting can reliably achieve climate stabilization targets.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument in the analysis?

A. Global carbon emissions rose in the past decade despite record levels of investment in offset markets by both governments and corporations. (It shows that emissions increased despite heavy use of offsets, but it does not prove offsets are ineffective by themselves, the emission might have increased due to other reasons) Wrong

B. Many governments that rely heavily on offset programs also provide subsidies to fossil fuel industries, undermining the impact of their emissions pledges.(This only points out contradictory government policies and not a flaw in offsetting itself) Wrong

C. Independent audits reveal that a significant share of carbon offset projects report emissions reductions that are not additional to what would have occurred under business-as-usual scenarios. (This directly supports the argument that many offsets are nonadditional and they do not cause real emission reductions. It strengths the conclusion that offsets alone cannot reliably meet climate goals) CORRECT

D. Reforestation-based offsets often take decades to achieve full carbon absorption and are vulnerable to reversal due to wildfire or land use changes.(This raises concerns about how long offsets take and whether they last) Wrong

E. Technological innovations in direct air capture remain expensive and unscalable in the near term, reducing the feasibility of offset-based net-zero pathways.(The argument is about reliability and not expense or scalability. It is irrelevant) Wrong

chasing725

Joined: 22 Jun 2025

Last visit: 13 Jan 2026

Posts: 176

Own Kudos:

173

[1]

Given Kudos: 5

Location: United States (OR)

Schools: Stanford

Posts: 176

Kudos: 173

[1]

23 Dec 2025, 06:50

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel