Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Struggling with GMAT Verbal as a non-native speaker? Harsh improved his score from 595 to 695 in just 45 days—and scored a 99 %ile in Verbal (V88)! Learn how smart strategy, clarity, and guided prep helped him gain 100 points.
Apr 2212:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
20 Feb 2026, 20:34
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
(N/A)
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
100%
(02:07)
wrong
based on 2
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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.
B. Many governments that rely heavily on offset programs also provide subsidies to fossil fuel industries, undermining the impact of their emissions pledges.
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.
D. Reforestation-based offsets often take decades to achieve full carbon absorption and are vulnerable to reversal due to wildfire or land use changes.
E. Technological innovations in direct air capture remain expensive and unscalable in the near term, reducing the feasibility of offset-based net-zero pathways.
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.
B. Many governments that rely heavily on offset programs also provide subsidies to fossil fuel industries, undermining the impact of their emissions pledges.
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.
D. Reforestation-based offsets often take decades to achieve full carbon absorption and are vulnerable to reversal due to wildfire or land use changes.
E. Technological innovations in direct air capture remain expensive and unscalable in the near term, reducing the feasibility of offset-based net-zero pathways.
20 Feb 2026, 20:34
Kudos
Bookmarks
Official Solution:
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.
B. Many governments that rely heavily on offset programs also provide subsidies to fossil fuel industries, undermining the impact of their emissions pledges.
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.
D. Reforestation-based offsets often take decades to achieve full carbon absorption and are vulnerable to reversal due to wildfire or land use changes.
E. Technological innovations in direct air capture remain expensive and unscalable in the near term, reducing the feasibility of offset-based net-zero pathways.
A. Global carbon emissions rose in the past decade despite record levels of investment in offset markets by both governments and corporations.
At first glance, this sounds like a solid point. But it’s too broad. Yes, emissions went up but we don’t know if that’s because offsets failed, or if emissions just rose faster than offsets could catch up. It’s correlation, not direct proof that offsets don’t work.
B. Many governments that rely heavily on offset programs also provide subsidies to fossil fuel industries, undermining the impact of their emissions pledges.
This makes the governments look inconsistent, sure. But that’s a different issue.
It doesn’t tell us whether offsets themselves work or not. You could remove subsidies and still be relying on bad offsets, so it doesn’t strengthen the main 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.
This seems right. It says: yeah, a lot of offsets aren’t actually doing anything new, they’re just claiming credit for reductions that were going to happen anyway. That’s exactly what the analysis was warning about. This supports the claim that offsets aren’t reliable for climate impact.
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 points out a weakness in reforestation-type offsets that they take time and can be undone. That’s a fair criticism, but not the one the analysis is focused on. The core argument is that many offsets wouldn’t change anything, even if they go perfectly as they were already going to happen. Kind of related, but not too promising.
E. Technological innovations in direct air capture remain expensive and unscalable in the near term, reducing the feasibility of offset-based net-zero pathways.
This is more about cost and scale, saying that one specific offset method isn’t ready yet. That’s a limitation, sure, but the argument is about offsets being ineffective in principle, not unaffordable. So this shifts the focus away from the core claim.
Answer: C
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.
B. Many governments that rely heavily on offset programs also provide subsidies to fossil fuel industries, undermining the impact of their emissions pledges.
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.
D. Reforestation-based offsets often take decades to achieve full carbon absorption and are vulnerable to reversal due to wildfire or land use changes.
E. Technological innovations in direct air capture remain expensive and unscalable in the near term, reducing the feasibility of offset-based net-zero pathways.
A. Global carbon emissions rose in the past decade despite record levels of investment in offset markets by both governments and corporations.
At first glance, this sounds like a solid point. But it’s too broad. Yes, emissions went up but we don’t know if that’s because offsets failed, or if emissions just rose faster than offsets could catch up. It’s correlation, not direct proof that offsets don’t work.
B. Many governments that rely heavily on offset programs also provide subsidies to fossil fuel industries, undermining the impact of their emissions pledges.
This makes the governments look inconsistent, sure. But that’s a different issue.
It doesn’t tell us whether offsets themselves work or not. You could remove subsidies and still be relying on bad offsets, so it doesn’t strengthen the main 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.
This seems right. It says: yeah, a lot of offsets aren’t actually doing anything new, they’re just claiming credit for reductions that were going to happen anyway. That’s exactly what the analysis was warning about. This supports the claim that offsets aren’t reliable for climate impact.
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 points out a weakness in reforestation-type offsets that they take time and can be undone. That’s a fair criticism, but not the one the analysis is focused on. The core argument is that many offsets wouldn’t change anything, even if they go perfectly as they were already going to happen. Kind of related, but not too promising.
E. Technological innovations in direct air capture remain expensive and unscalable in the near term, reducing the feasibility of offset-based net-zero pathways.
This is more about cost and scale, saying that one specific offset method isn’t ready yet. That’s a limitation, sure, but the argument is about offsets being ineffective in principle, not unaffordable. So this shifts the focus away from the core claim.
Answer: C
17 Mar 2026, 23:39
Kudos
Bookmarks
But what C is telling us is already mentioned in the question, how can that be a strengthner
bb
