For far too long, the United States has been without a long-range

Question

For far too long, the United States has been without a long-range energy plan. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 presents 1,700 pages and several hundred provisions attempting to elucidate such a plan. Many of the Act’s provisions are meant to spur innovative technologies, reduce American dependence on foreign oil, and keep a check on prices at the gas pump. These provisions include loan guarantees for companies that develop manufacturing processes that avoid producing greenhouse gases, and tax credits for both manufacturing and using environmentally conscious vehicles and appliances.

Though many of these provisions have merit, the Act is by no means a coherent plan for the future. There is no clear indication as to extent the of the nation’s long-term energy needs and no overall mechanism for either meeting those needs or managing the way we do business and live our lives so as to reduce those needs.

What the Act does provide is a slew of tax breaks and incentives for the petroleum, ethanol, and nuclear corporations that are already well served by government largess. And for every environmentally friendly provision, a free pass is given to a major energy provider. Oil and gas industries, for example, have been exempted from some clean-water laws. Another portion of the Act makes it easier to obtain permits for power lines and oil wells on public lands. There is even a provision that would allow for the consolidation of public utilities, something that has been wisely forbidden for the last 80 or so years.

Competition among the big energy concerns might produce innovative and profitable products, but it is folly to leave something so important and complex as the production,distribution, and use of energy to the marketplace alone. The federal government needs to find people who can do the hard science, who understand international markets, and who can formulate a policy that will realistically and conscientiously provide for this country’s energy needs as our oil deposits inevitably dry up. A policy of this sort—the Kyoto Protocol—is already in existence, but too many of our politicians are leery of an internationally formulated document that they simplistically see as a giveaway of money and power to developing nations.   1 
 1. According to the author, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 _______.

(A) encourages the consolidation of public utilities
(B) will do little to affect the price of foreign oil
(C) will not go far enough in spurring commercial innovation
(D) did not take into account the interests of smaller energy companies
(E) contains some useful ideas, but is marred by a lack of comprehensiveness

2 
 2. The author criticizes the Energy Policy Act of 2005 for all of the following reasons except _______.

(A) Companies that have already benefited from government policies will receive financial rewards
(B) There is insufficient mention of how to reduce energy consumption
(C) The provisions do not properly address the long-terms needs of the American public
(D) The financial incentives apply only to large businesses
(E) A longstanding and effective policy is overturned

3 
 3. According to the author, the Kyoto Protocol _______.

(A) is marginally better than the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(B) is viewed with suspicion by some elected officials because of its origins outside of the United States
(C) will be useful to the United States only after the nation’s oil reserves dry up
(D) was designed by scientists, not politicians
(E) is more likely to encourage innovation among energy companies than is the Energy Policy Act of 2005

4 
 4. Which of the following is NOT mentioned in the passage as being a part of the Energy Act of 2005?

(A) Government aid to ethanol companies
(B) Guaranteed loans to businesses that avoid producing greenhouse gases as a byproduct of their manufacturing process
(C) A stricter interpretation of existing clean-water laws
(D) Expedited access to public lands for private use
(E) Tax credits for producing appliances that do not harm the environment

5 
 5. The author discusses the consolidation of public utilities in order to

(A) illustrate a major problem of the Energy Act.
(B) demonstrate why the Energy Act is not a coherent plan.
(C) emphasize the risk of allowing permits for oil drilling on public lands.
(D) show how energy distribution can become more efficient.
(E) highlight the influence of energy lobbyists in formulating policy.

Kurtosis · Answer

1) According to the author, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 _______

Refer: "Though many of these provisions have merit, the Act is by no means a coherent plan for the future. There is no clear indication as to extent the of the nation’s long-term energy needs and no overall mechanism for either meeting those needs or managing the way we do business and live our lives so as to reduce those needs."

Answer: E

2) The author criticizes the Energy Policy Act of 2005 for all of the following reasons except _______.

Nowhere in the passage it is mentioned that financial incentives are applied to only large businesses.

Answer: D

3) According to the author, the Kyoto Protocol _______.

Refer: "A policy of this sort—the Kyoto Protocol—is already in existence, but too many of our politicians are leery of an internationally formulated document that they simplistically see as a giveaway of money and power to developing nations."

Answer: B

4) Which of the following is NOT mentioned in the passage as being a part of the Energy Act of 2005?

Refer: "Oil and gas industries, for example, have been exempted from some clean-water laws."

Answer: C

stne · Answer

Why cannot answer be A for question number 1.
At the end of third paragraph we do have line " There is even a provision that would allow for the consolidation of public utilities, something that has been wisely forbidden for the last 80 or so years."

Doesn't this mean that the act encourages consolidation of public utilities?

anairamitch1804 · Answer

I think A is not the answer because question is asking "according to author" and not "according to passage".

geniecc · Answer

For question #2, I selected answer choice (E) and got it wrong. I get why the answer is (D) because there is no mention of large companies...

But for question (E), is the support in the following?

"There is even a provision that would allow for the consolidation of public utilities, something that has been wisely forbidden for the last 80 or so years."

tarunanandani · Answer

Q.The author discusses the consolidation of public utilities in order to

Reference lines: 'Another portion of the Act makes it easier to obtain permits for power lines and oil wells on public lands. There is even a provision that would allow for the consolidation of public utilities, something that has been wisely forbidden for the last 80 or so years.'

a. illustrate a major problem of the Energy Act. --- Correct , the words such as 'forbidden' demonstrates that 'consolidation of public utilities' was one of the problems associated with the Energy Act.

b. demonstrate why the Energy Act is not a coherent plan. --- Incorrect , TRAP answer. The idea of being a coherent plan was discussed in the previous paragraph and not in the concerned para.

c. emphasize the risk of allowing permits for oil drilling on public lands. --- Incorrect , Another TRAP answer. Permits for oil drilling are mentioned in the lines before the concerned statement. The words: 'There is even a provision' separates the two problems.

d. show how energy distribution can become more efficient. --- Incorrect , Irrelevant. Energy distribution is not discussed in the concerned part of the passage.

e. highlight the influence of energy lobbyists in formulating policy. --- Incorrect , out of scope. Energy lobbyists are not mentioned in the passage.

Gladiator59 · Answer

Surely feels like a whole bunch of questions should go with such a large passage.

Anyways, 3 mins 10 secs to this one.

Quoting the end of the third paragraph:
"Another portion of the Act makes it easier to obtain permits for power lines and oil wells on public lands.  There is even a provision  that would  allow for the consolidation of public utilities ,   something that has been wisely forbidden for the last 80 or so years.  "
 1. First colored part tells us that the author mentions a completely new provision which is unrelated to the previous things being mentioned ( a difficult thing to conclude if you do not understand the discussion) 
 2. Second colored part talks about this new provision being unwise as it was forbidden for the last 80 years. So this is a major change which is being ushered by the act.

The author discusses the consolidation of public utilities in order to

a. illustrate a major problem of the Energy Act.  BINGO - but only after others are eliminated. Overall this is what we were looking for from the analysis above. 
b. demonstrate why the Energy Act is not a coherent plan.  Too wide a scope for the specific question, however since the author's main point is similar could be a trap if nothing else stays after elimination. 
c. emphasize the risk of allowing permits for oil drilling on public lands.  TRAP -Not related to the question, discussed just before the part being asked is mentioned in the passage and hence it is important to realize that the two are unrelated. First highlighted part in quoted text reveals this. 
d. show how energy distribution can become more efficient.  Opposite. Laughable. Discard. 
e. highlight the influence of energy lobbyists in formulating policy.  Can not ascertain this, not directly mentioned. Discard. The author could be in general trying t imply this but not as an answer to this specific question.

Surely there would be more questions associated with this paragraph. If someone comes across please pm or tag me, I will add them. Thanks.

Hope it helps.

GDT · Answer

bm2201

Can you pls explain how B can be eliminated

Though A was also close, I felt that this para was telling how the act was not coherent ( because it did not plan for future needs and misplaced incentives)

bM22 · Answer

Hi  GDT ,

Option B is not wrong, it's just not consistent with what's asked. Question is asking as to why does the author discuss  public utilities , for which A is best suited.

He doesn't discuss public utilities to demonstrate why Energy Act is not a coherent plan, he discusses it because consolidation of public utilities was wisely forbidden earlier, but through the Act the provision allowed for the consolidation, which the author feels is a major problem with the Act. The para mentioning public utilities is not suggesting that the act was not coherent, the provisions discussed in the 1st para are the reason as to why the author feels that even with such quality provisions, the act is not coherent. W.r.t to public utilities that this provision is wisely prohibited, should not be enacted upon.

Thus we can eliminate B.

Hope This Helps.
Thanks.

mariatoledoo · Answer

Why A is not the answer in Q1??

bM22 · Answer

Hi  mariatoledoo ,

Though A is present in the passage, its not a view point of author. Question is asking about the Energy Policy Act of 2005 from the view point of author. W.r.t option A what author mentions is : "something that has been wisely forbidden for the last 80 or so years.". Thus E is the better answer.

Hope This Helps.
Thanks.

gloomybison · Answer

VeritasKarishma 
In Question 5
Although ı can agree with the official answer, ı can't really say that B looks wrong. In the previous paragraph (2nd para.), prior to listing flaws in the act, it mentions how incoherent the act is by stating lack of indications, mechanisms etc.. However next paragraph(3rd para.) starts by saying "What the Act does provide is a slew of tax breaks and incentives for the petroleum, ethanol, and nuclear corporations that are already well served by government largess" As you can see this paragraph starts by listing what this act offers in kinda belittling way by saying that some incentivized areas are already well served by largess. Afterwards it starts listing the flaws such as; free passes, easy-to-obtain benefits and ,of course, consolidation of utilities. IMO para 2 and para 3 are somewhat linked, it first talks about the acts' incoherence, later on, after bashing the act to ground, it finally cares to explain what little act provides; slew of tax breaks and incentives, some of which are regarded as flawed. All in all, one can safely commentate that these major(?) flaws can cater to the incoherence of the act, furthermore incoherence of the very act is a flaw on its own! so the answer can be B as much as it can be A

KarishmaB · Answer

You always need to look for the best option. As we tell you in SC too, the answer is the option that is better. Right/wrong is a subjective matter. 
Incoherence is mentioned in para 2 and it is supported by giving a couple of points. Then a new paragraph starts and gives us the problems with the act. Those problems are not mentioned to prove incoherence. That thought was over in paragraph 2. Each paragraph brings in a new thought connected thought.

thakurarun85 · Answer

Hi, Can someone help me with question 2 option e. How do we eliminate E.

gloomybison · Answer

thakurarun85 
"There is even a provision that would allow for the consolidation of public utilities, something that has been wisely forbidden for the last 80 or so years." I believe that the policy that has been forbidding the possible consolidation for 80 years is turned over in this very act. Policy is actually referring to whatever thing (clause?, another act?, policy?) that is prohibiting utilities from being consolidated

AJ0126 · Answer

Can someone explain the question 2. I chose E because there is no mentioned of any longstanding and effective policy which was overturned. It was mentioned that there was no effective policy. 
I understand that option D makes sense, but then I chose E because there was no mention of any effective policy. 
Please Explain. Thanks

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Hello AJ0126

The passage doesn't mention that a longstanding and effective policy is overturned. Instead, it discusses the existence of the Kyoto Protocol as a pre-existing policy that some politicians are leery of, but it doesn't state that this policy is being overturned by the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

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.

For far too long, the United States has been without a long-range

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

For far too long, the United States has been without a long-range

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