V26-13

Question

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.

bb · Answer

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

nandini14 · Answer

But what C is telling us is already mentioned in the question, how can that be a strengthner

AbhishekP220108 · Answer

Hi nandini14 let me try to help. Option C does not tell exactly what is mentioned in the argument. You might be referring to this part: "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. " Well, this may look similar, but as the question is about strengthening our belief, in conclusion, offsetting cannot be a reliable approach based on the recent analysis; Option C is providing more support to the highlighted part by bringing new evidence, such as an audit report.

Hope this helps

nandini14

But what C is telling us is already mentioned in the question, how can that be a strengthner

Hope this helps

shashag · Answer

Hey  bb , I initially thought of C only as the right answer. 
The only reason I did not finally choose it is because the same information is already given in the passage. Isn't a 'strengthen' question supposed to bring in new information that supports the argument in the passage?

The next best then seemed like option D. It is directly targeting that 'carbon capture' may be ineffective – hence, implying the need to cut down fossil fuel usage.

Please advise. If, in fact, C is correct, then for other questions too, do we pick options that reinforce/strengthen the argument but may seem like a repetition of what's already given? Thank you!

AbhishekP220108 · Answer

i  shashag  you are correct, it does seem that C is similar to the info presented in the argument, however there is difference.

" 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 ".- This part is given in the argument, right, but look at the red highlighted part, this is just a claim/opinion of an author. If we provide evidence to support this claim, we are presenting a reason why the conclusion is correct. Option C is doing the exact thing; it is basically bolstering the highlighted claim.

Hope this helps

VenkataSai · Answer

I don’t quite agree with the solution. Isn't option C just repeating what has been already told in the passage? So how come it is adding new evidence to strengthen the passage?

AbhishekP220108 · Answer

Hi VenkataSai I have tried to explain here https://gmatclub.com/forum/v26-454674.h ... l#p3779998 please have a look at it

Usernamevisible · Answer

Whenever the conclusion rejects X because of one specific flaw, strengthen by proving that exact flaw is real, common, or important—not by inventing a new flaw.

B.

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

Eliminate

Why:

Introduces new issue (subsidies).
Weakens governments, not offsets.
Doesn't support premise that offsets themselves fail.
Creates alternative explanation.

Transferable

If option introduces another reason for failure, it usually misses the author's reasoning.

V26-13

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