Environmentalists fear that looming global economic slowdown

Question

Environmentalists fear that looming global economic slowdown will thwart efforts to curb carbon emissions. Since complying with strict environmental regulations would impose a significant financial burden on many businesses and industries, most will balk at the prospect and not reduce their respective carbon footprints. Governments, meanwhile, will be reductant to impose environmental restrictions, for fear of suppressing economic growth.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. Governments, whether local or federal, will not raise taxes on already financially burdened populations.
B. There are no cost-cutting measures that businesses could implement to help them survive a compromised economic climate.
C. Tax cuts alone will not stop industries from resisting efforts to curb carbon emissions. 
D. A worldwide economic slowdown would not significantly reduce energy demand and industrial output, both of which are linked to high levels of carbon emissions. 
E. High levels of economic growth are impossible to achieve with any level of reduction in global energy consumption.

Source: PR 1012

USCTrojan2006 · Answer

a. Governments, whether local or federal, will not raise taxes on already financially burdened populations. ---> taxes aren't the only way to regulate Carbon Emissions. There are cabinet level regulations as well. This cannot be the answer.
b. There are no cost-cutting measures that businesses could implement to help them survive a compromised economic climate. ---> Tempting, but the stimulus deals with global economic growth. Businesses are merely things that contribute to that growth.
c. Tax cuts alone will not stop industries from resisting efforts to curb carbon emissions. ---> Only refers to tax cuts as the only way to curb emissions. Stimulus is wide open on that subject. Cannot be the answer.
d. A worldwide economic slowdown would not significantly reduce energy demand and industrial output, both of which are linked to high levels of carbon emissions. ---> Answer weakens the argument from the stimulus. 
e. High levels of economic growth are impossible to achieve with any level of reduction in global energy consumption. ---> This should be the answer. Negate it and it destroys the stimulus.

I may have butchered this one though. My head hurts, and a lot of people are talking around my desk at work.

vigneshpandi · Answer

I chose B over E....E was tempting too, but for some reason I found it not an assumption....

OA Please?

kt00381n · Answer

I will definitely post OA soon. Just want to see more replies.

anilnandyala · Answer

Environmentalists fear that looming global economic slowdown will thwart efforts to curb carbon emissions. Since complying with strict environmental regulations would impose a significant financial burden on many businesses and industries, most will balk at the prospect and not reduce their respective carbon footprints. Governments, meanwhile, will be reductant to impose environmental restrictions, for fear of suppressing economic growth.

a. Governments, whether local or federal, will not raise taxes on already financially burdened populations.
b. There are no cost-cutting measures that businesses could implement to help them survive a compromised economic climate.
c. Tax cuts alone will not stop industries from resisting efforts to curb carbon emissions. 
d. A worldwide economic slowdown would not significantly reduce energy demand and industrial output, both of which are linked to high levels of carbon emissions. 
e. High levels of economic growth are impossible to achieve with any level of reduction in global energy consumption.

answer is b. from the argument in order for curb carbon emission, is a costly process. if govt try to impose strict carbon emission the economy falls so the assumption is there are no cost-cutting measures that businesses could implement to help them survive a compromised economic climate.

consider giving kudos if it helps you

kt00381n · Answer

Ok, i need to go to sleep since its 1am in NY and therefore im posting the answer :-D

OA is D. It appears to me that PR 1012 has very hard questions for assumptions and therefore to confirm my point i posted one of the questions here. I will try to post more, but dont promise since it is very time consuming ( and every minute counts here

) Originally, I choose E (was debating between E and D), however now i see why E is incorrect. First of all, it is too extreme (and as i saw this before we dont like this on assumption questions) by saying impossible . Also, in my opinion it mentions high levels of eco growth but the passage never talks about high levels of eco growth. Toughie i guess. Thanks guys for at least trying to reply!!! I appreciate!

gettinit · Answer

D is correct as it is an assumption made by the argument that a slow economy will in turn not result in lower carbon emissions. This is called a defender assumption question where you defend the passage and eliminate a possible undermining of the argument.

SaraLotfy · Answer

I can't find the question!!! would you please repost or could someone please point out the question for me?

fnumiamisburg · Answer

Environmentalists fear that looming global economic slowdown will thwart efforts to curb carbon emissions. Since complying with strict environmental regulations would impose a significant financial burden on many businesses and industries, most will balk at the prospect and not reduce their respective carbon footprints. Governments, meanwhile, will be reductant to impose environmental restrictions, for fear of suppressing economic growth.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

a. Governments, whether local or federal, will not raise taxes on already financially burdened populations.
b. There are no cost-cutting measures that businesses could implement to help them survive a compromised economic climate.
c. Tax cuts alone will not stop industries from resisting efforts to curb carbon emissions. 
d. A worldwide economic slowdown would not significantly reduce energy demand and industrial output, both of which are linked to high levels of carbon emissions. 
e. High levels of economic growth are impossible to achieve with any level of reduction in global energy consumption.

it was B vs D for me...but if we negate D, the argument falls apart.. if energy demand is reduced, >>industrial output reduced >>carbon emission reduced

sammervash · Answer

Question asks, "A global economic slowdown is a barrier to lowering our carbon emissions, because an economic slowdown discourages businesses from reducing their carbon footprint and governments from imposing restrictions, either of which may hurt economic growth. What would we have to assume for this to be true?"

Format:
A -> C (economic slowdown -> no curbing of carbon emissions)
A -> B -> C (economic slowdown -> assumption -> no curbing)

Goal: find B.

a. Governments, whether local or federal, will not raise taxes on already financially burdened populations.
- Incorrect: irrelevant. We're talking about businesses and governments imposing restrictions on the former -- not raising taxes on the population.

b. There are no cost-cutting measures that businesses could implement to help them survive a compromised economic climate.
- Incorrect: irrelevant. We're talking about what businesses are/aren't doing to curb their carbon emissions, not what they're doing to survive the economic slowdown.

Interesting argument! You're saying that an imposition + no cost-cutting measures = businesses cannot survive = economy falls? Good point, but the argument does not state that if businesses cannot survive, then the economy falls. It only states that imposing restrictions may be a financial burden, and thus, a threat to economic growth. Also, we can't assume that a business cannot survive because there are not cost-cutting measures that businesses can rely on to survive the economic slowdown; there may be other ways the business could survive. Cost-cutting measures could be sufficient for a business to survive, but it may not be necessary. In other words:  cost cutting measures -> survive  is not the same as  no cost cutting measures -> does not survive . However, these points are not relevant to our search, anyway, which is trying to find what assumption helps us conclude that the economic slowdown will thwart efforts to reduce carbon emissions.

c. Tax cuts alone will not stop industries from resisting efforts to curb carbon emissions. 
- Incorrect: irrelevant. The question does not make it clear what the government would do in terms of providing incentives for emission reduction; it only mentions restrictions (disincentive).

d. A worldwide economic slowdown would not significantly reduce energy demand and industrial output, both of which are linked to high levels of carbon emissions. 
- Correct: Before stating that an economic slowdown would go against efforts to reduce carbon emission, we would have to assume that an economic slowdown already did not reduce energy demand/industrial output (AKA carbon emissions). If the slowdown did reduce energy demand/industrial output/carbon emissions, then an economic slowdown would be helping the environmental movement, and the argument wouldn't really make any sense.

e. High levels of economic growth are impossible to achieve with any level of reduction in global energy consumption.
- Incorrect: We're talking about an economic slowdown in general and carbon emissions, not high levels economic growth and energy consumption. I also agree with those who stated that this was too extreme of an answer ("impossible").

akhil911 · Answer

The reason i believe D is the correct answer is as given below.

First try and negate D -  "A worldwide economic slowdown would significantly reduce energy demand and industrial output, both of which are linked to high levels of carbon emissions."

D--The negation of this answer is that the economic slowdown WILL reduce energy demand and industrial output. This contradicts 
the conclusion that economic problems will thwart efforts to curb carbon emissions and hence is the right answer.

jlgdr · Answer

Dude please post the freaking question Thanks! Cheers J

reto · Answer

Are you guys sure about D? The conclusion is "economic problems  will thwart efforts  to curb carbon emission" so if we have a worldwide economic slowdown and hence  lower carbon emissions (due to lower demand) , it is  not the same as companies doing an effort!!!!

Do you believe the environmentalist would be happy as long he/she has lower emissions (due to lower demand but not due to companie's effort?) but at the same time companies who do not really care?

Could anyone support this please? So for me only B would works.

sairam595 · Answer

Hi Experts,

Can someone explain why option B is incorrect.

Many thanks in advance.

reto · Answer

It seems out of scope.

I found some explanation

"D is the only option which mentions the implicit assumption in the argument, that being that the financial downturn will not lead to a reduced energy consumption in the world.

All other options re out of context."

This question is however not very clear imo. So do not bother and go on.

sairam595 · Answer

Thanks for the reply Reto.

There are many questions of assumption here which are very critical like this question .

Source of these questions were not mentioned. Can I skip those qstns from unknown sources.

reto · Answer

It's from Princeton Review. Focus on Official Guide Questions, it's better. Buy the gmatprep software and study with it. (Kudos if it helps

) https://books.google.ch/books?id=qRh_Bk ... h.&f=false

Nightmare007 · Answer

It is a cause and effect.

E Slowdown - > Increase Carbon ;
In D it is stating that 
E slowdown -x-> decrease Carbon.

Assumption negating this will destroy the conclusion.
My take is D . while in B it is making broader. so its wrong- if it says any other then its right

Adi93 · Answer

+1 for D
Negating D shatters the conclusion
B mentions no cost cutting measures, which is a bit extreme IMO

+1 if this helps!

adi007 · Answer

I am still not confident about the Ans Option D as being correct.
A worldwide economic slowdown would not significantly reduce energy demand and industrial output, both of which are linked to high levels of carbon emissions.

Since, In normal situtation, When the energy demand and industrial output both remain high still many companies put efforts to reduce carbon footprints. Thats not due to fluctuation of demand but because they might have surplus cash to put efforts to reduce their carbon foot prints. And hence just by reduction in demand cannot be the reason to make this conclusion correct.
I feel better would have been - > They do not have the free cash in hand to work towards the enviroment regulations and businesses will prioritize operational stability over environmental initiatives due to a lack of readily available capital for regulatory compliance

Environmentalists fear that looming global economic slowdown

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

Environmentalists fear that looming global economic slowdown

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